#FactCheck : Old video of Ranveer Singh at Kashi Vishwanath Temple falsely linked to ‘Dhurandhar 2’ success

Introduction

The year, 2022 has been a year of transition and change for the gaming industry. This year esports and gaming including the industry’s greater increased acceptance by the sports authorities and higher prize pools for top players,  has been more commercial than ever, according to research by the year 2025 the industry will witness growth by 5 million dollars and around 420 million active gamers from India. Since, India is on the way to become world’s largest gaming market, with revenue earned in 2021 increasing by up to 28%, or 1.2 billion dollars, and predicted to reach 2 billion dollars by 2024 as a result of the COVID-19 expanding internet access throughout the country.

After a lengthy debate, the government has finally decided to bring online gaming under the purview of the law. The President of India has changed the rules governing e-sports and requested that the Sports Ministry and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) include e-sports in multi-sport competitions. India’s gaming sector has reached new heights this year, with the country winning its first bronze medal in the first esports event organized by this year’s Commonwealth Games, and this is only the beginning.

Indian government takes on E-sports

The Indian government has given esports a huge boost. It has been introduced into the traditional sports disciplines of the nation. Droupadi Murmu, the President of India, changed the regulations governing eSports using the authority “conferred by clause (3) of Article 77 of the Constitution,” and requested that “e-Sports be included as part of multi-sports events” from the Ministries of Electronics and Information Technology and Sports. Some crucial points will clarify the government’s position on e-sports.

• E-sports were added as a demonstration sport to the 2018 Asian Games in Jakarta, which meant that medals earned in the sport were not counted in the official total of medals.
• There is a greater desire for Esports to be integrated with school curricula.
• E-Sports (Electronic Sports) have been acknowledged by the Indian government as a component of multi-sport tournaments.

Why is e-sports important?

The Indian Esports Industry has worked hard to distinguish Esports from the broader category of “Gaming.” Esports is a competitive sport in which esports athletes compete in specific video game genres in a virtual, electronic environment using their physical and mental prowess, according to the industry.

According to studies, as individuals have gotten more screen aware and online gaming has become a part of their life, internet gaming not only improves fine motor skills but also sharpens the mind. The industry has the most users and stakeholders, and it has become critical to governing it; consequently, legislation is required to regulate it.

The online regulation bill 2022

The Online Gaming (Regulations) Bill, 2022, was recently filed in the Lok Sabha to create an effective regulatory mechanism for the online gaming business to prevent fraud and misuse of things related to or incidental to it. There are 20 sections spread throughout three chapters. It intends to establish an Online Gaming Commission, the authority, mandate, and jurisdiction of which will be specified by the Bill. An online gaming server will be licensed, relinquished, revoked, or suspended by the Commission’s key highlights of the bill to make it more clear

• The Bill establishes a regulating agency, the Online Gaming Commission (“OGC”), comprised of five members chosen by the Central Government, each with at least one specialist in the fields of law, cyber technology, and law enforcement experience.
• The OGC will be able to oversee the functions of online gaming websites, issue periodic or special reports on Online Gaming issues, recommend appropriate measures to control and curb illegal Online Gaming, grant, suspend, and revoke licenses for online gaming websites, and set fees for license applications and renewals.
• Without a website and a non-transferable and non-assignable license, the Bill proposes to make online gambling illegal. Anyone operating an online gaming server or website without a license risks up to three years in prison and a fine. The permission will be good for a six-year term.
• The license intended to be given under the Bill may be terminated or canceled if the licensee violates any of the license’s requirements or any of Bill’s provisions. However, the Bill does not apply to anybody providing backend services in India, including hosting and maintenance for any international gaming website situated outside of India.
• The bill also mentions the Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Collaboration in Online Gaming

Few misses in the bill that can be addressed to make it stronger and a better version

• The law does not address Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements, customer complaint procedures, advertising and marketing restrictions, user data protection, responsible gaming guidelines, and other concerns.
• In the bill, there is no clear distinction between money involved in the game. This is a matter of concern and needs to be addressed so the money laundering aspect can be determined.
• The distinction between “games of chance” and “games of skill” is not addressed in the Bill. Furthermore, the Bill does not specify whether its prohibitions apply only to for-real-money games or to free games.‍

Conclusion

Despite the bill’s flaws, it has offered optimism to the burgeoning gaming sector, which desperately needs a robust regulatory and legal framework free of ambiguity, allowing players to play safely, and encouraging entrepreneurs to enter the field with safety and security. An improved regulatory framework will increase job prospects while also assisting the government. A transparent framework will also aid in the protection of the rights of actors and stakeholders.

Introduction

The unprecedented rise of social media, challenges with regional languages, and the heavy use of messaging apps like WhatsApp have all led to an increase in misinformation in India. False stories spread quickly and can cause significant harm, like political propaganda and health-related mis/misinformation. Programs that teach people how to use social media responsibly and attempt to check facts are essential, but they do not always connect with people deeply. Reading stories, attending lectures, and using tools that check facts are standard passive learning methods used in traditional media literacy programs. 

Adding game-like features to non-game settings is called "gamification," it could be a new and interesting way to answer this question. Gamification involves engaging people by making them active players instead of just passive consumers of information. Research shows that interactive learning improves interest, thinking skills, and memory. People can learn to recognise fake news safely by turning fact-checking into a game before encountering it in real life. A study by Roozenbeek and van der Linden (2019) showed that playing misinformation games can significantly enhance people's capacity to recognise and avoid false information.

Several misinformation-related games have been successfully implemented worldwide:

• The Bad News Game – This browser-based game by Cambridge University lets players step into the shoes of a fake news creator, teaching them how misinformation is crafted and spread (Roozenbeek & van der Linden, 2019).
• Factitious – A quiz game where users swipe left or right to decide whether a news headline is real or fake (Guess et al., 2020).
• Go Viral! – A game designed to inoculate people against COVID-19 misinformation by simulating the tactics used by fake news peddlers (van der Linden et al., 2020).

For programs to effectively combat misinformation in India, they must consider factors such as the responsible use of smartphones, evolving language trends, and common misinformation patterns in the country. Here are some key aspects to keep in mind:

1. Vernacular Languages

There should be games in Hindi, Tamil, Bengali, Telugu, and other major languages since that is how rumours spread in different areas and diverse cultural contexts. AI voice conversation and translation can help reduce literacy differences. Research shows that people are more likely to engage with and trust information in their native language (Pennycook & Rand, 2019).

2. Games Based on WhatsApp

Interactive tests and chatbot-powered games can educate consumers directly within the app they use most frequently since WhatsApp is a significant hub for false information. A game with a WhatsApp-like interface where players may feel like they are in real life, having to decide whether to avoid, check the facts of, or forward messages that are going viral could be helpful in India.

3. Detecting False Information

As part of a mobile-friendly game, players can pretend to be reporters or fact-checkers and have to prove stories that are going viral. They can do the same with real-life tools like reverse picture searches or reliable websites that check facts. Research shows that doing interactive tasks to find fake news makes people more aware of it over time (Lewandowsky et al., 2017).

4. Reward-Based Participation

Participation could be increased by providing rewards for finishing misleading challenges, such as badges, diplomas, or even incentives on mobile data. This might be easier to do if there are relationships with phone companies. Reward-based learning has made people more interested and motivated in digital literacy classes (Deterding et al., 2011).

5. Universities and Schools 

Educational institutions can help people spot false information by adding game-like elements to their lessons. Hamari et al. (2014) say that students are more likely to join and remember what they learn when there are competitive and interactive parts to the learning. Misinformation games can be used in media studies classes at schools and universities by using models to teach students how to check sources, spot bias, and understand the psychological tricks that misinformation campaigns use.

What Artificial Intelligence Can Do for Gamification

Artificial intelligence can tailor learning experiences to each player in false games. AI-powered misinformation detection bots could lead participants through situations tailored to their learning level, ensuring they are consistently challenged. Recent natural language processing (NLP) developments enable AI to identify nuanced misinformation patterns and adjust gameplay accordingly (Zellers et al., 2019). This could be especially helpful in India, where fake news is spread differently depending on the language and area.

Possible Opportunities

Augmented reality (AR) scavenger hunts for misinformation, interactive misinformation events, and educational misinformation tournaments are all examples of games that help fight misinformation. India can help millions, especially young people, think critically and combat the spread of false information by making media literacy fun and interesting. Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) in gamified treatments for misinformation could be a fascinating area of study in the future. AI-powered bots could mimic real-time cases of misinformation and give quick feedback, which would help students learn more.

Problems and Moral Consequences

While gaming is an interesting way to fight false information, it also comes with some problems that you should think about:

• Ethical Concerns: Games that try to imitate how fake news spreads must ensure players do not learn how to spread false information by accident.
• Scalability: Although worldwide misinformation initiatives exist, developing and expanding localised versions for India's varied language and cultural contexts provide significant challenges.
• Assessing Impact: There is a necessity for rigorous research approaches to evaluate the efficacy of gamified treatments in altering misinformation-related behaviours, keeping cultural and socio-economic contexts in the picture.

Conclusion 

A gamified approach can serve as an effective tool in India's fight against misinformation. By integrating game elements into digital literacy programs, it can encourage critical thinking and help people recognize misinformation more effectively. The goal is to scale these efforts, collaborate with educators, and leverage India's rapidly evolving technology to make fact-checking a regular practice rather than an occasional concern.

As technology and misinformation evolve, so must the strategies to counter them. A coordinated and multifaceted approach, one that involves active participation from netizens, strict platform guidelines, fact-checking initiatives, and support from expert organizations that proactively prebunk and debunk misinformation can be a strong way forward.

References

• Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining "gamification". Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference.
• Guess, A., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. (2020). Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances.
• Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work?—A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
• Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition.
• Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Fighting misinformation on social media using “accuracy prompts”. Nature Human Behaviour.
• Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2019). The fake news game: actively inoculating against the risk of misinformation. Journal of Risk Research.
• van der Linden, S., Roozenbeek, J., Compton, J. (2020). Inoculating against fake news about COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology.
• Zellers, R., Holtzman, A., Rashkin, H., Bisk, Y., Farhadi, A., Roesner, F., & Choi, Y. (2019). Defending against neural fake news. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.

‍

Introduction

Digital evidence has become part of almost every modern investigation. A photograph can place a person at a location, an audio recording can capture a conversation, and a video can appear to show an event as it happened. For years, the main forensic concern was whether such material had been altered. The rapid growth of generative artificial intelligence has added a harder question: even when a file is preserved exactly as received, can investigators still trust what it appears to show?

Deepfakes have made this question practical rather than theoretical. Synthetic or manipulated audio, video and images can imitate real people and real events with increasing realism. CERT-In describes deepfakes as a high-risk threat because they can support disinformation, fraud, social engineering and reputational harm.[1] NIST research likewise treats AI-generated media as a digital-forensics challenge that requires systematic evaluation of detection technologies.[2]

The result is an evidence problem. The answer is not to stop trusting digital evidence, but to become more disciplined about establishing its origin, integrity, context and authenticity.

The evidence problem begins before the laboratory

When a suspicious video reaches an investigator through WhatsApp, Telegram, email or social media, the file may already have passed through several transformations. It may have been compressed, re-encoded, cropped, renamed or stripped of metadata. A screenshot may preserve what is visible but lose the original file structure. A forwarded audio clip may contain no reliable information about where it was first recorded.

For that reason, forensic examination should begin with acquisition and provenance, not with a quick “deepfake detector” result. Investigators should ask: Who supplied the file? Where was it obtained? Is there an original version? What device or account produced it? What happened to the file before it reached the investigator?

Cryptographic hashing remains important because it can demonstrate that an acquired working copy has not changed during examination. But a valid hash does not prove that the underlying event was genuine. A perfectly preserved fake is still a fake.

What a professional examination should look for

A reliable assessment combines several forms of evidence rather than relying on one technical indicator.

Source and acquisition. The original artefact should be preserved whenever possible. Investigators should record the acquisition method, date and time, source account or device, and any known transformations before collection. A documented chain of custody is essential when material may later support a legal, disciplinary or regulatory decision.

Metadata and file structure. Metadata may provide useful clues about creation, encoding, editing software and timestamps. File structure, compression behaviour and related technical characteristics can also reveal inconsistencies. However, these indicators are supporting evidence, not proof on their own, because metadata can be removed or rewritten during normal processing.

Content-level examination. Forensic analysis can include frame-by-frame video review, audio waveform and spectral examination, and inspection for inconsistencies in lighting, reflections, facial movement, lip synchronisation or background elements. Such signs may help guide an investigation, but they are not a permanent checklist. Generative systems continue to improve.

Independent corroboration. This is often the strongest step. If a recording allegedly shows that a person was in a particular place at a particular time, investigators can compare it with CCTV, access-control records, device artefacts, communications, location information, eyewitness accounts or other independent records. The goal is to determine whether the wider evidence supports the event represented by the media.

A real-world lesson: the Pikesville case

The 2024 Pikesville High School incident in Maryland provides a practical example of why authenticity cannot be assumed from appearance alone. An audio recording circulated online that was presented as the principal making racist and antisemitic comments. On January 17, 2024, Baltimore County Public Schools said it could not yet confirm the recording’s veracity and opened an investigation.[3]

Several months later, the school district reported that investigators, with assistance from the FBI and other experts, had verified that the audio had been created using artificial intelligence.[4] Police subsequently arrested the school’s former athletic director in connection with the fabricated recording.[5]

‍

The forensic lesson is larger than the incident itself. The recording had social consequences before its authenticity was established. In a fast-moving online environment, the first version of an event can travel much further than the later correction. Deepfake investigations therefore have to consider not only whether media is authentic, but also how quickly unverified material can influence decisions.

From deepfake detection to content provenance

Detection tools will remain useful, but they should be treated as part of an examination rather than an automatic verdict. NIST’s Guardians of Forensic Evidence work reflects the need to evaluate how analytic systems perform against changing forms of AI-generated media and how well they generalise beyond controlled conditions.[2]

Another important direction is content provenance. The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) has developed a technical framework for recording verifiable information about how digital content was created and changed. Content Credentials can bind provenance information to an asset using cryptographic techniques, allowing later users to inspect a recorded content history when that information is available.[6]

‍

‍

Provenance does not mean that every claim associated with a file is automatically true. It adds context: who created it, what actions were taken and how the asset changed. In a deepfake environment, that context can be as important as the content itself.

Why this matters in India

The issue is especially relevant to India’s fast-growing digital environment. CERT-In’s 2024 advisory identifies misinformation, fraud and reputational damage among the risks associated with synthetic media.[1] In August 2026, the Government of India stated that the regulatory framework addresses AI-generated deepfakes and noted amendments to the IT Rules in February 2026 concerning harms arising from synthetically generated information, including requirements related to labelling and traceable metadata for permissible AI-generated content.[7]

For organisations, deepfake response should therefore not be treated only as a media or public-relations issue. It can become an incident-response and forensic issue. A suspicious executive voice note, a manipulated employee video or a fabricated screen recording may require preservation, technical examination and independent corroboration before any action is taken.

Conclusion

Deepfakes do not make digital evidence useless. Deepfakes make handling of evidence more dangerous. The professional response is not to believe everything or to doubt everything. The professional response is to build a process around evidence: preserve the original where possible document how evidence was acquired, calculate and record hashes, examine metadata and technical characteristics use detection tools while understanding their limitations compare media with independent evidence and examine provenance information where it is available.

Importantly investigators and decision-makers should separate three questions: Is the file intact? Is the content authentic? Does the content actually prove the event being alleged? Deepfakes can pass the test while failing the other two.

In the age of AI evidence will increasingly be judged not only by how convincing it looks but, by how well its origin, integrity, context and history can be demonstrated. That is the standard that can help preserve trust when seeing and hearing're no longer enough.

References

1. CERT-In, “Deepfakes - Threats and Countermeasures,” Advisory CIAD-2024-0060, 27 November 2024. View source

2. NIST, “Guardians of Forensic Evidence: Evaluating Analytic Systems Against AI-Generated Deepfakes,” 27 January 2025. View source

3. Baltimore County Public Schools, “January 17, 2024, Community Update: Message from Superintendent Dr. Myriam Rogers Regarding Pikesville High School.” View source

4. Baltimore County Public Schools, “April 24, 2024 Staff and Community Update: Message from Superintendent Dr. Myriam Rogers Regarding Pikesville High School Investigation.” View source

5. The Baltimore Banner / WYPR, “Ex-athletic director framed principal with AI-generated voice, police say,” 25 April 2024. View source

6. Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA), “Content Credentials: C2PA Technical Specification,” Version 2.1. View source

7. Government of India, Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, “Government Strengthens Regulatory Framework to Address AI-Generated Deepfakes,” 6 August 2026. View source

‍