#FactCheck-Viral Image of ‘New Iranian Banknote’ Featuring Khamenei Is Misleading; Likely AI-Generated
Executive Summary
An image of a banknote featuring Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is going viral on social media, with claims that Iran’s central bank has issued a newly designed 5 million rial note bearing his portrait. However, a fact-check by the CyberPeace Research Wing has found the claim to be misleading.
Claim
The image was shared by a verified user, “Sprinter Press Agency,” on X (formerly Twitter), claiming that the Central Bank had introduced a new banknote design featuring the leader of the Islamic Revolution.
Fact Check
To verify the claim, relevant keywords were searched across multiple credible sources. No reports were found from any reputable international media outlet, Iranian government platform, or the Central Bank of Iran confirming the release of such a banknote. A technical analysis of the viral image was also conducted. According to the AI detection tool Zhuque AI Detection Assistant, there is a 63.8% probability that the image is AI-generated, raising further doubts about its authenticity.
Conclusion:
The claim that Iran’s central bank has issued a new 5 million rial banknote featuring Ayatollah Khamenei is misleading. There is no official confirmation of such a release, and available evidence suggests that the viral image is either edited or AI-generated.
Related Blogs
Introduction
Words come easily, but not necessarily the consequences that follow. Imagine a 15-year-old child on the internet hoping that the world will be nice to him and help him gain confidence, but instead, someone chooses to be mean on the internet, or the child becomes the victim of a new kind of cyberbullying, i.e., online trolling. The consequences of trolling can have serious repercussions, including eating disorders, substance abuse, conduct issues, body dysmorphia, negative self-esteem, and, in tragic cases, self-harm and suicide attempts in vulnerable individuals. The effects of online trolling can include anxiety, depression, and social isolation. This is one example, and hate speech and online abuse can touch anyone, regardless of age, background, or status. The damage may take different forms, but its impact is far-reaching. In today’s digital age, hate speech spreads rapidly through online platforms, often amplified by AI algorithms.
As we celebrate today, i.e., 18th June, the International Day for Countering Hate Speech, if we have ever been mean to someone on the internet, we pledge never to repeat that kind of behaviour, and if we have been the victim, we will stand against the perpetrator and report it.
This year, the theme for the International Day for Countering Hate Speech is “Hate Speech and Artificial Intelligence Nexus: Building coalitions to reclaim inclusive and secure environments free of hatred. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, in his statement, said, “Today, as this year’s theme reminds us, hate speech travels faster and farther than ever, amplified by Artificial Intelligence. Biased algorithms and digital platforms are spreading toxic content and creating new spaces for harassment and abuse."
Coded Convictions: How AI Reflects and Reinforces Ideologies
Algorithms have swiftly taken the place of feelings; they tamper with your taste, and they do so with a lighter foot, invisibly. They are becoming an important component of social media user interaction and content distribution. While these tools are designed to improve user experience, they frequently inadvertently spread divisive ideologies and push extremist propaganda. This amplification can strengthen the power of extremist organisations, spread misinformation, and deepen societal tensions. This phenomenon, known as “algorithmic radicalisation,” demonstrates how social media companies may utilise a discriminating content selection approach to entice people down ideological rabbit holes and shape their ideas. AI-driven algorithms often prioritise engagement over ethics, enabling divisive and toxic content to trend and placing vulnerable groups, especially youth and minorities, at risk. The UN’s Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, launched on June 18, 2019, recognises that while AI holds promise for early detection and prevention of harmful speech, it also demands stringent human rights safeguards. Without regulation, these tools can themselves become purveyors of bias and exclusion.
India’s Constitutional Resolve and Civilizational Ethos against Hate
India has always taken pride in being inclusive and united rather than divided. As far as hate speech is concerned, India's stand is no different. The United Nations, India believes in the same values as its international counterpart. Although India has won many battles against hate speech, the war is not over and is now more prominent than ever due to the advancement in communication technologies. In India, while the right to freedom of speech and expression is protected under Article 19(1)(a), its exercise is limited subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). Landmark rulings such as Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. and Amish Devgan v. UOI have clarified that speech can be curbed if it incites violence or undermines public order. Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, empowers the government to block content, and these principles are also reflected in Section 196 of the BNS, 2023 (153A IPC) and Section 299 of the BNS, 2023 (295A IPC). Platforms are also required to track down the creators of harmful content and remove it within a reasonable hour and fulfil their due diligence requirements under IT rules.
While there is no denying that India needs to be well-equipped and prepared normatively to tackle hate propaganda and divisive forces. India’s rich culture and history, rooted in philosophies of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family) and pluralistic traditions, have long stood as a beacon of tolerance and coexistence. By revisiting these civilizational values, we can resist divisive forces and renew our collective journey toward harmony and peaceful living.
CyberPeace Message
The ultimate goal is to create internet and social media platforms that are better, safer and more harmonious for each individual, irrespective of his/her/their social and cultural background. CyberPeace stands resolute on promoting digital media literacy, cyber resilience, and consistently pushing for greater accountability for social media platforms.
References
- https://www.un.org/en/observances/countering-hate-speech
- https://www.artemishospitals.com/blog/the-impact-of-trolling-on-teen-mental-health
- https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/from-clicks-to-chaos-how-social-media-algorithms-amplify-extremism
- https://www.techpolicy.press/indias-courts-must-hold-social-media-platforms-accountable-for-hate-speech/
Introduction
In June 2026, the Government of India temporarily restricted access to Telegram amid concerns that the platform had been used to facilitate examination related malpractice, including the alleged circulation of leaked question papers during the NEET UG re examination. The move reignited a familiar debate about the responsibility of digital platforms for unlawful activities carried out through them.
Critics of such restrictions raise a fundamental question: if a traffic accident occurs on a road, do we shut down the road? If theft takes place inside a shopping mall, do we close the entire mall? By the same logic, is it reasonable to block a communication platform because some individuals misuse it? These questions lie at the heart of a broader conflict between state interests in maintaining public order and the protection of digital rights, privacy, and freedom of communication in an increasingly interconnected world.
The controversy surrounding Telegram therefore extends beyond a single examination or messaging application. It raises a deeper and more pressing question: who should bear responsibility for illegal acts committed through encrypted digital platforms, and where should the law draw the line between effective enforcement and the preservation of fundamental digital freedoms?
Beyond mere communication for millions of students in India, Telegram is a classroom in the digital sense, an archive for their notes, practice papers, lecture recordings, and community groups that hundreds of millions of candidates refer to every single day. Therefore, why on a routine day in June 2026 did the messaging app top every other channel? Temporary internet restriction on the platform had become necessary to stop examination-related malpractice like leakage of question papers and was temporarily suspended, with reports suggesting that this move by the government was on the occasion of the NEET-UG re-examination.
This ban once again brings up a bigger question that cannot be contained within one particular examination. When has it become okay to hold a communication platform responsible and accountable for illegal acts committed over it? Or are the perpetrators solely to blame, and the service can be prohibited? Ultimately, where is the line drawn between public interest, law enforcement, and digital rights and privacy?
End-to-End Encryption: Architecture and Benefits
At the heart of these discussions of Telegram and other apps lies a technology referred to as "end-to-end encryption" or "E2EE." Quite literally, it means a message is locked with cryptography on the sender's device and can only be unlocked by the intended recipient. Not even the tech platform running the communication app can decipher it for everyone else; it just looks like random gibberish.
The Process
This kind of modern communication relies on public key cryptography. Each person has a public key they can share with anyone and a private key that stays only on their devices. When they send you a message, it is scrambled with crypto that can be unlocked by only your private key. WhatsApp and Signal, for example, use the Signal Protocol, which features "perfect forward secrecy" and is designed to protect communications from ever being unlocked even if one key is compromised. Telegram's approach is a bit unique. By default, Telegram messages aren't encrypted with end-to-end crypto; this only comes via an optional feature called "Secret Chats," a key difference in the regulatory debate.
The Dark Side: Crime, Misuse, and the Moderation Dilemma
The very features that make end-to-end messaging popular among everyday people are privacy, speed, anonymity, and mass reach which also make end-to-end messaging popular among criminals. That, unfortunately, is the catch for policymakers globally: The technology designed to protect innocent users is also the technology that facilitates criminal activity.
3.1 Criminal Abuse
Telegram, in particular, has frequently come under fire for its role in hosting a spectrum of criminal activities, most notably in the recent controversy in India regarding NEET-UG 2026 examination papers where channels allegedly advertised leaked question papers for enormous sums, convincing desperate candidates. In these instances, messages could be altered or deleted using Telegram’s message editing feature, fabricating evidence of prior leaks. However, this extends to illicit marketplaces, drug trafficking, financial fraud, money laundering, and distributing other prohibited content. Telegram's usage in disseminating extremist propaganda and aiding criminal organizations is also frequently cited, leading to bans or restrictions in countries ranging from Brazil to Nepal to Somalia to Vietnam.
3.2 The Moderation Dilemma
But the difficulty is not just with misuse; it’s also about effective moderation. Moderation, however, requires content transparency. Strong encryption is built to obscure just that. Many end-to-end messaging services like Signal and WhatsApp emphasize that even if they wanted to, they would have been able to decipher the content of a user’s message due to their architecture. Telegram has been in scrutiny for years due to its limited cooperation with law enforcement agencies because its default chats are not completely end-to-end encrypted, though there has been an attempt by Pavel Durov, the platform’s founder, to increase cooperation following his 2024 arrest in France.
This gives policymakers the following challenge: How can governments require increased access to fight crime without forcing tech companies to weaken security for everyone? As cryptographers point out, a specific "backdoor" intended to allow access to law enforcement officials can be easily exploited by hackers, foreign governments, and any other actor with nefarious intent.
Comparison of Regulatory Approaches Worldwide
4.1 Authoritarian Countries' Responses
China, for instance, has had the app blocked as part of its strategy to control access to the internet since 2015, and Iran did so in 2018 when the app was used to help organize protests against the government. An infamous Russian bid to block Telegram in 2018 turned into a cautionary story. Trying to censor the service disrupted the IPs of millions of computers, including significant services like those run by Amazon and Google. The move was met by a surge of users turning to VPNs to get access. It’s an expensive, disruptive, and incomplete form of censorship.
4.2 Democratic Countries' Approaches
Democratic jurisdictions generally prefer targeted interventions. Telegram was suspended in Brazil in 2022 and 2023, though again, only in response to a judge’s order in relation to particular investigations, and was lifted when it came into compliance. The EU’s approach has been to build on an established approach of regulation by use of a broader legislative framework, including the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, aimed at platform liability rather than outlawing encryption outright.
Meanwhile, the proposed scanning of encrypted communications has run into strong judicial headwinds, with the European courts stressing the danger of backdoors to privacy.
4.3 The United Kingdom Approach
The UK offers a middle way. With its Investigatory Powers Act, the government can oblige tech companies to collaborate in legitimate investigations. But this came to a head earlier this year with the case of Apple and the government's attempts to force it to unlock encrypted iCloud backups. Apple not only refused to reduce its encryption but also decided instead to disable some of its features for British users. This has created a problem for democracies across the world: how to balance access for investigators against the need to maintain the security that makes our systems safer.
Judicial and Legislative Perspectives: India and Beyond
In the Indian context, to have a perspective about the legal frameworks concerning content moderation, let’s explore some of the foundational decisions from the Supreme Court. Three decisions have laid the building block for digital rights laws: the first being Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), where Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, was upheld, but only by laying rigorous conditions on the review process and chance of challenging the said decision. Another important decision in this sphere is Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) which stated that the right to privacy is fundamental in nature under Article 21 of the Constitution and stipulated the constitutional requirements of legality, legitimacy, and proportionality against the state’s interventions in fundamental rights. The most recent important case law to consider, in this context, would be Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) which set certain limitations, such as any internet shut-downs or orders have to be temporary, proportional, and have scope for appeal. Further, the Supreme Court demanded transparency around any and all orders of blocking.
These principles of proportionality and legal limitations are highly pertinent to the Telegram issue, especially since Section 69A confers powers to block information in case of concerns about public order, national security, etc., but activists often cite this power to target specific content rather than entire platforms like Telegram. The ban on Telegram in June 2026 and disabling of message editing will force authorities to justify not only their statutory authority but also the need for proportionate means.
These aspects are amplified by IT Rules, 2021, which mandate that some instant messaging platforms may require identification of the ‘first originator’ of messages, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, to protect digital personal data by ensuring it does not undermine national security exceptions to this end.
Moreover, the use of encryption to ensure secure and private communications is becoming an important point of legal discourse globally. Recently, the European Court of Human Rights in Podchasov v. Russia (2024) held that mandating decryption on devices as a tool of investigative power constituted a disproportionate interference with an individual's right to privacy implying that while states may indeed have authority to regulate communication and digital services, any such measures limiting the scope of encryption will have to meet strict requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality to be legally justifiable.
Constitutional Validity of the Ban
The government's case for a constitutional ban on Telegram rests upon its ability to satisfy the proportionality framework established by Puttaswamy and Anuradha Bhasin.
- Legitimate aim: The state's strong suit. This is the government's best argument. Protection of the integrity of NEET-UG, a high-stakes test with close to 2.4 million students, can indeed be a legitimate state objective. Given that there is evidence of channels that allegedly were involved in selling leaked question papers, the action is presumably justifiable under section 69A for preventing the incitement or occurrence of public disorder or preventing cognizable offenses.
- Necessity: The National Testing Agency (NTA) itself admitted that localized removal of suspicious accounts on Telegram had already mitigated the risks, while Telegram insisted that it had independently taken down numerous channels. The fact that the block affected more than 150 million users in India, where the medium is widely used for personal communication and is also utilized on other platforms like WhatsApp, Discord, and Instagram to a similar or higher extent, raises the responsibility to justify a strict platform-wide ban. Moreover, there is a significant legal question regarding the state’s authority under section 69A to direct Telegram to disable its message-editing capability.
- Proportionality and process: The block, even though it was temporary and intended to ensure fairness in the examination system, severely undermined legitimate uses of the platform by students who used it to share educational materials and organize study groups. Moreover, the opaqueness around the section 69A order is itself hard to reconcile with the transparency requirements set out in Anuradha Bhasin.
Thus, while the objectives of preventing exam fraud may be legitimate, the necessity and proportionality of single platform-wide bans remain highly suspect under Indian constitutional law.
Policy Recommendations and the Path Forward
The Telegram controversy points to the need for a better balancing act in platform governance in India. Firstly, instead of blanket platform shutdowns, action should target specific channels, bots, or URLs, as may be the case. Secondly, any attempt to dictate changes to features, such as disabling message editing, should be based on specific statutory provisions, not an expansive reading of Section 69A. Furthermore, there is a dire need for increased transparency; blocking orders must state the justification for the order, what is being blocked, and for how long, as far as possible. In the long run, stricter cross-border cooperation via streamlined MLATs, or through the appointment of local legal representatives by foreign platforms, would facilitate easier enforcement. Ultimately, all major blocking decisions must be accompanied by proportionality assessments. Lastly, India must resist pressure to provide access to encryption backdoors; while this might ease investigative burdens, doing so would severely jeopardise the cybersecurity of India, its businesses, and citizens.
Conclusion
The Telegram ban is an example of the tricky equilibrium between protection of public interest and protection of digital liberties in our hyper-connected world. While the intent to counter exam fraud is justifiable, a blanket ban on any platform has much broader implications on questions of necessity, proportionality and transparency. India has a well-developed constitutional and legal framework to deal with this issue already, and the challenge will be to see if those powers are used appropriately.
References
Cases:
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 — Supreme Court of India
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 — Supreme Court of India (Nine-Judge Bench)
- Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637 — Supreme Court of India
- Podchasov v. Russia, European Court of Human Rights (Application No. 33696/19, February 2024)
- Apple Inc. v. United States (In re Search of an Apple iPhone, C.D. Cal. 2016)
- Telegram Messenger Inc. v. Union of India & Anr., Delhi High Court (June 2026) — Sub judice
Legislation & Rules:
- Information Technology Act, 2000 (India) — Sections 69A, 79
- IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access to Information by Public) Rules, 2009
- IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
- Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (India) & DPDP Rules, 2025
- EU Digital Services Act, 2022 (Regulation 2022/2065)
- EU Digital Markets Act, 2022 (Regulation 2022/1925)
- EU Child Sexual Abuse Regulation (CSAR) Proposal — In Trilogue, June 2026
- UK Investigatory Powers Act, 2016
Policy Sources:
- Internet Freedom Foundation, Statement on Telegram Block, 16 June 2026
- European Commission, ProtectEU Security Strategy, June 2025
- MeitY Section 69A Blocking Order re: Telegram (June 2026)
- NTA Press Release on NEET-UG 2026 Re-Examination, 16 June 2026
Executive Summary:
A video of former Army Chief General Manoj Pande is going viral on social media with the claim that he attacked the Modi government, saying that supporting Israel is causing significant harm to the Indian Army. The research by CyberPeace revealed that the audio present in the viral video is AI-generated. No such statement was made in the original video.
Claim:
On social media platform X, while sharing the viral video, users wrote, “Delhi: Former Army Chief General Manoj Pande (Retd.) said, ‘Do you know what the biggest loss of supporting Israel is? Our Indian Army was always trained as a moral force, but the current situation is turning it into an ethnic force. Remember my words, this situation is moving towards a complete rebellion. We have all seen what is happening in Assam.’ ‘The Israeli army stands against humanity, and brutality has become its identity. Our army is becoming like them due to its association. The Modi government and the Sangh Parivar are responsible for this. For both, Israel is an ideal country, and they are running an agenda to turn India into Israel.’”
Fact Check:
In the research of the viral video claiming that former Army Chief General Manoj Pande attacked the Modi government, we conducted a reverse image search with the help of keyframes. During this process, we found a video uploaded on March 14 on the X account of the news agency Press Trust of India (PTI).
The visuals present in the video matched those in the viral video.
In this video, former Army Chief General Manoj Pande was seen delivering a speech in Marathi and English. However, during this, he was talking about increasing new kinds of capabilities in view of the current situation and not mentioning Israel, as claimed in the viral video. In the approximately 1 minute 15 seconds long video, he did not give any such statement as present in the viral video.
While taking the research forward, we found a report published on March 15, 2026, on the website of ThePrint. This report mentioned the speech delivered by former Army Chief General Manoj Pande, but no report mentioned the statement shown in the viral video.
Conclusion:
Our research found that the audio present in the viral video is AI-generated. In the original video, he did not make any such statement.
