#FactCheck: Viral AI image shown as AI -171 caught fire after collision
Executive Summary:
A dramatic image circulating online, showing a Boeing 787 of Air India engulfed in flames after crashing into a building in Ahmedabad, is not a genuine photograph from the incident. Our research has confirmed it was created using artificial intelligence.
Claim:
Social media posts and forwarded messages allege that the image shows the actual crash of Air India Flight AI‑171 near Ahmedabad airport on June 12, 2025.
Fact Check:
In our research to validate the authenticity of the viral image, we conducted a reverse image search and analyzed it using AI-detection tools like Hive Moderation. The image showed clear signs of manipulation, distorted details, and inconsistent lighting. Hive Moderation flagged it as “Likely AI-generated”, confirming it was synthetically created and not a real photograph.
In contrast, verified visuals and information about the Air India Flight AI-171 crash have been published by credible news agencies like The Indian Express and Hindustan Times, confirmed by the aviation authorities. Authentic reports include on-ground video footage and official statements, none of which feature the viral image. This confirms that the circulating photo is unrelated to the actual incident.
Conclusion:
The viral photograph is a fabrication, created by AI, not a real depiction of the Ahmedabad crash. It does not represent factual visuals from the tragedy. It’s essential to rely on verified images from credible news agencies and official investigation reports when discussing such sensitive events.
- Claim: An Air India Boeing aircraft crashed into a building near Ahmedabad airport
- Claimed On: Social Media
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
Related Blogs
Introduction
In an era where digitalization is transforming every facet of life, ensuring that personal data is protected becomes crucial. The enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) is a significant step that has been taken by the Indian Parliament which sets forth a comprehensive framework for Digital Personal Data. The Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 has recently been released for public consultation to supplement the Act and ensure its smooth implementation once finalised. Though noting certain positive aspects, there is still room for addressing certain gaps and multiple aspects under the draft rules that require attention. The DPDP Act, 2023 recognises the individual’s right to protect their personal data providing control over the processing of personal data for lawful purposes. This Act applies to data which is available in digital form as well as data which is not in digital form but is digitalised subsequently. While the Act is intended to offer wide control to the individuals (Data Principal) over their personal information, its impact on vulnerable groups such as ‘Persons with Disabilities’ requires closer scrutiny.
Person with Disabilities as data principal
The term ‘data principal’ has been defined under the DPDP Act under Section 2(j) as a person to whom the personal data is related to, which also includes a person with a disability. A lawful guardian acting on behalf of such person with disability has also been included under the ambit of this definition of Data Principal. As a result, a lawful guardian acting on behalf of a person with disability will have the same rights and responsibilities as a data principal under the Act.
- Section 9 of the DPDP Act, 2023 states that before processing the personal data of a person with a disability who has a lawful guardian, the data fiduciary must obtain verifiable consent from that guardian, ensuring proper protection of the person with disability's data privacy.
- The data principal has the right to access information about personal data under Section 11 which is being processed by the data fiduciary.
- Section 12 provides the right to correction and erasure of personal data by making a request in a manner prescribed by the data fiduciary.
- A right to grievance redressal must be provided to the data principal in respect of any act or omission of performance of obligations by the data fiduciary or the consent manager.
- Under Section 14, the data principal has the right to nominate any other person to exercise the rights provided under the Act in case of death or incapacity.
Provision of consent and its implication
The three key components of Consent that can be identified under the DPDP Act, are:
- Explicit and Informed Consent: Consent given for the processing of data by the data principal or a lawful guardian in case of persons with disabilities must be clear, free and informed as per section 6 of the Act. The data fiduciary must specify the itemised description of the personal data required along with the specified purpose and description of the goods or services that would be provided by such processing of data. (Rule 3 under Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules)
- Verifiable Consent: Section 9 of the DPDP Act provides that the data fiduciary needs to obtain verifiable consent of the lawful guardian before processing any personal data of such a person with a disability. Rule 10 of the Draft Rules obligates the data fiduciary to adopt measures to ensure that the consent given by the lawful guardian is verifiable before the is processed.
- Withdrawal of Consent: Data principal or such lawful guardian has the option to withdraw consent for the processing of data at any point by making a request to the data fiduciary.
Although the Act includes certain provisions that focus on the inclusivity of persons with disability, the interpretation of such sections says otherwise.
Concerns related to provisions for Persons with Disabilities under the DPDP Act:
- Lack of definition of ‘person with disabilities’: The DPDP Act or the Draft Rules does not define the term ‘persons with disabilities’. This will create confusion as to which categories of disability are included and up to what percentage. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 clearly defines ‘person with benchmark disability’, ‘person with disability’ and ‘person with disability having high support needs’. This categorisation is essential to determine up to what extent a person with disability needs a lawful guardian which is missing under the DPDP Act.
- Lack of autonomy: Though the definition of data principal includes persons with disabilities however the decision-making authority has been given to the lawful guardian of such individuals. The section creates ambiguity for people who have a lower percentage of disability and are capable of making their own decisions and have no autonomy in making decisions related to the processing of their personal data because of the lack of clarity in the definition of ‘persons with disabilities’.
- Safeguards for abuse of power by lawful guardian: The lawful guardian once verified by the data fiduciary can make decisions for the persons with disabilities. This raises concerns regarding the potential abuse of power by lawful guardians in relation to the handling of personal data. The DPDP Act does not provide any specific protection against such abuse.
- Difficulty in verification of consent: The consent obtained by the Data Fiduciary must be verified. The process that will be adopted for verification is at the discretion of the data fiduciary according to Rule 10 of the Draft Data Protection Rules. The authenticity of consent is difficult to determine as it is a complex process which lacks a standard format. Also, with the technological advancements, it would be challenging to identify whether the information given to verify the consent is actually true.
CyberPeace Recommendations
The DPDP Act, 2023 is a major step towards making the data protection framework more comprehensive, however, the provisions related to persons with disabilities and powers given to lawful guardians acting on their behalf still need certain clarity and refinement within the DPDP Act framework.
- Consonance of DPDP with Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016: The RPWD and DPDP Act should supplement each other and can be used to clear the existing ambiguities. Such as the definition of ‘persons with disabilities’ under the RPWD Act can be used in the context of the DPDP Act, 2023.
- Also, there must be certain mechanisms and safeguards within the Act to prevent abuse of power by the lawful guardian. The affected individual in case of suspected abuse of power should have an option to file a complaint with the Data Protection Board and the Board can further take necessary actions to determine whether there is abuse of power or not.
- Regulatory oversight and additional safeguards are required to ensure that consent is obtained in a manner that respects the rights of all individuals, including those with disabilities.
References:
- https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf
- https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/259889.pdf
- https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15939/1/the_rights_of_persons_with_disabilities_act%2C_2016.pdf
- https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/consent-disability-rights-and-data-protection-3143441
- https://www.pacta.in/digital-data-protection-consent-protocols-for-disability.pdf
- https://www.snrlaw.in/indias-new-data-protection-regime-tracking-updates-and-preparing-for-compliance/
A video circulating on social media shows a man allegedly rolling out bhature on his stomach and then frying them in a pan. The clip is being shared with a communal narrative, with users making derogatory remarks while falsely linking the act to a particular community.
CyberPeace Foundation’s research found the viral claim to be false. Our probe confirms that the video is not real but has been created using artificial intelligence (AI) tools and is being shared online with a misleading and communal angle.
Claim
On January 5, 2025, several users shared the viral video on social media platform X (formerly Twitter). One such post carried a communal caption suggesting that the person shown in the video does not belong to a particular community and making offensive remarks about hygiene and food practices..
- The post link and archived version can be viewed here: https://x.com/RightsForMuslim/status/2008035811804291381
- Archive Link: https://archive.ph/lKnX5
Fact Check:
Upon closely examining the viral video, several visual inconsistencies and unnatural movements were observed, raising suspicion about its authenticity. These anomalies are commonly associated with AI-generated or digitally manipulated content.
To verify this, the video was analysed using the AI detection tool HIVE Moderation. According to the tool’s results, the video was found to be 97 percent AI-generated, strongly indicating that it was not recorded in real life but synthetically created.
Conclusion
CyberPeace Foundation’s research clearly establishes that the viral video is AI-generated and does not depict a real incident. The clip is being deliberately shared with a false and communal narrative to mislead users and spread misinformation on social media. Users are advised to exercise caution and verify content before sharing such sensational and divisive material online.
Executive Summary
A video is being widely shared on social media and linked to protests that allegedly took place in Lucknow after the reported killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.Users claim that police in the capital of Uttar Pradesh baton-charged people who were protesting against the United States and Israel. The video is being widely circulated across social media platforms with this claim. However, research by CyberPeace found the claim to be false. Our verification revealed that the video is not from Lucknow but from Bareilly, and it is related to an incident that took place on September 26, 2025, when Uttar Pradesh Police baton-charged protesters during a rally held in support of the “I Love Mohammad” campaign.
Claim Post:
On March 3, 2026, an X (formerly Twitter) user shared the viral video claiming that the Uttar Pradesh Police took action against people blocking roads in Lucknow and creating unrest in support of Ali Khamenei.
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we extracted key frames from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the search, we found a similar video posted on Instagram on September 26, 2025, indicating that the footage predates the current claim.
Further research led us to the same video on the website of Aaj Tak, where it was published on September 26, 2025.
According to the report, protests erupted in Bareilly after Friday prayers over a controversy related to “I Love Mohammad” posters. Hundreds of people took to the streets carrying banners and posters. The report further stated that protesters, responding to a call by cleric Maulana Tauqeer Raza, attempted to break police barricades and move forward. Police initially tried to persuade the crowd to disperse, but when the situation escalated and the crowd refused to back down, officers resorted to baton-charging to control the situation. The incident reportedly led to tension in the area.
Conclusion:
Our research found that the viral video being shared as police action on protesters in Lucknow after the alleged killing of Ali Khamenei is misleading. The footage is actually from Bareilly and shows a police baton-charge during a protest rally held on September 26, 2025 in support of the “I Love Mohammad” campaign.
