#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
The appeal is to be heard by the TDSAT (telecommunication dispute settlement & appellate tribunal) regarding several changes under Digital personal data protection. The Changes should be a removal of the deemed consent, a change in appellate mechanism, No change in delegation legislation, and under data breach. And there are some following other changes in the bill, and the digital personal data protection bill 2023 will now provide a negative list of countries that cannot transfer the data.
New Version of the DPDP Bill
The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill has a new version. There are three major changes in the 2022 draft of the digital personal data protection bill. The changes are as follows: The new version proposes changes that there shall be no deemed consent under the bill and that the personal data processing should be for limited uses only. By giving the deemed consent, there shall be consent for the processing of data for any purposes. That is why there shall be no deemed consent.
- In the interest of the sovereignty
- The integrity of India and the National Security
- For the issue of subsidies, benefits, services, certificates, licenses, permits, etc
- To comply with any judgment or order under the law
- To protect, assist, or provide service in a medical or health emergency, a disaster situation, or to maintain public order
- In relation to an employee and his/her rights
The 2023 version now includes an appeals mechanism
It states that the Board will have the authority to issue directives for data breach remediation or mitigation, investigate data breaches and complaints, and levy financial penalties. It would be authorised to submit complaints to alternative dispute resolution, accept voluntary undertakings from data fiduciaries, and advise the government to prohibit a data fiduciary’s website, app, or other online presence if the terms of the law were regularly violated. The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal will hear any appeals.
The other change is in delegated legislation, as one of the criticisms of the 2022 version bill was that it gave the government extensive rule-making powers. The committee also raised the same concern with the ministry. The committed wants that the provisions that cannot be fully defined within the scope of the bill can be addressed.
The other major change raised in the new version bill is regarding the data breach; there will be no compensation for the data breach. This raises a significant concern for the victims, If the victims suffer a data breach and he approaches the relevant court or authority, he will not be awarded compensation for the loss he has suffered due to the data breach.
Need of changes under DPDP
There is a need for changes in digital personal data protection as we talk about the deemed consent so simply speaking, by ‘deeming’ consent for subsequent uses, your data may be used for purposes other than what it has been provided for and, as there is no provision for to be informed of this through mandatory notice, there may never even come to know about it.
Conclusion
The bill requires changes to meet the need of evolving digital landscape in the digital personal data protection 2022 draft. The removal of deemed consent will ultimately protect the data of the data principal. And the data of the data principal will be used or processed only for the purpose for which the consent is given. The change in the appellate mechanism is also crucial as it meets the requirements of addressing appeals. However, the no compensation for a data breach is derogatory to the interest of the victim who has suffered a data breach.
Executive Summary
A recent viral message on social media such as X and Facebook, claims that the Indian Government will start charging an 18% GST on "good morning" texts from April 1, 2024. This news is misinformation. The message includes a newspaper clipping and a video that was actually part of a fake news report from 2018. The newspaper article from Navbharat Times, published on March 2, 2018, was clearly intended as a joke. In addition to this, we also found a video of ABP News, originally aired on March 20, 2018, was part of a fact-checking segment that debunked the rumor of a GST on greetings.
Claims:
The claim circulating online suggests that the Government will start applying a 18% of GST on all "Good Morning" texts sent through mobile phones from 1st of April, this year. This tax would be added to the monthly mobile bills.
Fact Check:
When we received the news, we first did some relevant keyword searches regarding the news. We found a Facebook Video by ABP News titled Viral Sach: ‘Govt to impose 18% GST on sending good morning messages on WhatsApp?’
We have watched the full video and found out that the News is 6 years old. The Research Wing of CyberPeace Foundation also found the full version of the widely shared ABP News clip on its website, dated March 20, 2018. The video showed a newspaper clipping from Navbharat Times, published on March 2, 2018, which had a humorous article with the saying "Bura na mano, Holi hain." The recent viral image is a cutout image from ABP News that dates back to the year 2018.
Hence, the recent image that is spreading widely is Fake and Misleading.
Conclusion:
The viral message claiming that the government will impose GST (Goods and Services Tax) on "Good morning" messages is completely fake. The newspaper clipping used in the message is from an old comic article published by Navbharat Times, while the clip and image from ABP News have been taken out of context to spread false information.
Claim: India will introduce a Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 18% on all "good morning" messages sent through mobile phones from April 1, 2024.
Claimed on: Facebook, X
Fact Check: Fake, made as Comic article by Navbharat Times on 2 March 2018
Introduction
Freedom of speech and expression is fundamental to democracy and is constitutionally entrenched in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The explosion of online spaces, brought about by the digital age, in the form of social media, blogs, and messaging apps, has reinterpreted how information is authored, disseminated, and consumed. This digital revolution has galvanised individuals to engage further inclusively in public debate, but has also fanatically magnified the risks of misinformation, hate speech, and threats to public order. Against this background, the judiciary is increasingly called upon to determine the limits of free speech, primarily where state regulation seeks to infringe upon constitutional protection.
Constitutional and Statutory Framework related to Freedom of Speech
The judiciary plays an integral role in balancing the fundamental right of freedom of speech with the regulation of online content, especially during the fast-paced evolution of the digital world. In India, with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of speech, the courts bear the critical responsibility of protecting this liberty while recognising the State's legitimate interests in restricting harmful or unlawful content on a digital scale. This adjudicatory dilemma is even trickier because the said right has been held by the Supreme Court not to be an absolute one and is subject to "reasonable restrictions" as in Article 19(2), which recognises restrictions in the interest of sovereignty, security, public order, decency, and morality. Freedom of speech, being the cornerstone of democracy in India, does have an umbrella of reasonable restrictions under which the state can regulate any form of speech that infringes upon other equally compelling societal interests. However, with the coming of the internet and other digital communication arrangements, there was a need to develop new statutory instruments, i.e., Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and Rules made thereunder, including Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules, 2021. These enactments attempt to regulate digital content, confronting issues such as hate speech, misinformation, and content that threatens public order. The judiciary's mandate is to interpret the enactments within the constitutional precincts, thus ensuring that the arbitrariness of State action is not aggravated or that the regulation is not overbroad. Judicial Landmark Decisions Affirming Balance The judiciary has played a front-ranking role in elaborating a jurisprudence protecting free speech in delineating legitimate regulation thereof. The Supreme Court judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015, is seminal. Section 66A of the IT Act was struck down as it was vague and overly broad, causing a chilling effect on online speech. The Court has emphasised that any limitation on speech must be precise and fall strictly within the parameters laid down in Article 19(2). While the Court recognises that harmful online content needs to be addressed, the remedy must not encroach upon free political debate, satire, and criticism vital for democracy.
Following this, the Anuradha Bhasin case clarified the convergence of free speech and online access. The court held that the right to free speech had a vital medium in the form of the internet and that it would have to be an inevitable, proportionate shutdown, and transparent for challenge before the judiciary for any shutdown of the internet. This reaffirmed that restrictions on online speech must be rigorously tested.
Subsequent cases involve limitations on the 2021 IT Rules, whereby such government bodies can demand that “fake” or “misleading” material be taken off the internet. Courts move with circumspection, recognising the government's interest in fighting bogus information but remaining vigilant against over-regulation that can be code for pre-emptive censorship and threatening healthy discourses.
The virtual world raises particular and deeper questions: the viral nature of online speech multiplies its impact, distributing both democratic ideas and abusive material instantaneously. The courts recognise this twinning. While pressurising the legislature and executive to formulate clearer, more precise rules, courts simultaneously act as constitutional Guardians, avoiding breaches of the right with executive excess or vague laws. There is a strain between judicial activism, which promotes constitutional rights aggressively, and the fear of judicial paternalism, courts overreaching into policy arenas. But there is a need for vigilance by the judiciary due to the rapidly changing nature of digital technologies and threats to the freedoms of democracy. The judiciary continues to give contours to free speech and online regulation. There are enforcement issues, such as ongoing abuse of struck-down provisions, such as Section 66A, that the court counters with reaffirmation of constitutional directives. The evolving jurisprudence balances on thin stilts, upholding the democratic spirit of India by securing speech on online spaces and sanctioning reasonable, transparent moderation of harmful speech.
Conclusion
The Indian judiciary's leadership in balancing online content regulation with the freedom of speech is central and refined. The courts continually emphasise that speech on the digital medium is highly constitutionally protected and that restrictions must be legally valid, specific, essential, and proportionate. By classical decisions and constant review of new regulating actions, courts safeguard democratic participation in the digital public domain from unmeritorious censorship. Concurrently, the courts recognize the responsibility of the state in regulating digital ills such as mis recipe and hate speech, demanding parameters that uphold constitutional freedoms and the due process. The balancing act of the judiciary continues to be fundamental in defining India's digital democracy so that free speech can thrive even as the state upholds public order and human dignity in the digital communication age.
