#FactCheck: Viral video blast of fuel tank in UAE Al Hariyah Port portray as Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Introduction

In a business that historically operated in a landscape defined by probability and odds, India’s real-money gaming companies have taken their own legal bet, a gamble that may very well decide whether or not they survive. Play Games24x7, Junglee Games, Sachiko Gaming, and Head Digital Works were in front of India’s highest court on July 14, seeking review of an order that will ultimately decide the fate of these companies.

The Facts

The firms’ review petitions challenge the May 27 ruling in which the Supreme Court also upheld the constitutional legality of the 28% GST on online gaming, paving the way for over 1.5 trillion in back taxes. The petitions, prepared by the Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan law firm, “do not ask to set the entire case all over again” since a review is a technical process usually dealt with by the same bench of judges in their chambers when there’s an error on the record or genuinely fresh material before it before the case may potentially be referred for a new trial in open court if there is something significant in it.

The Genesis of the Legal Battle

To understand why gaming firms are pulling this lever, it helps to revisit what the Court actually decided in May. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled that once a player stakes money on an uncertain outcome, the platform is supplying an "actionable claim" arising from betting and gambling under GST law. The long-cherished distinction between a "game of skill" and a "game of chance", which the industry had used for years to argue it wasn't really gambling, was declared irrelevant the moment cash entered the pot.

Just as consequentially, the Court rejected the industry's central financial argument: that GST should be calculated only on the platform's commission, or gross gaming revenue, rather than on the entire amount players deposit into a contest. The bench sided with tax authorities, ruling that the 28% levy applies to the full face value of every bet. It also found that 2023 amendments to GST law were merely "clarificatory", not the creation of a brand-new tax, a finding that opened the door to retrospective demands stretching back years, rather than only from October 2023 onwards, when the amendments took effect.

The practical fallout was severe. The ruling revived a ₹21,000 crore notice against Gameskraft that the Karnataka High Court had earlier quashed, and it validated roughly 91 show-cause notices issued industry-wide, with estimates of the total exposure ranging as high as ₹1.5–2.5 lakh crore, depending on the source. For context, that figure dwarfs the cumulative revenues several of these companies have ever earned.

The Arguments Now on the Table

The review petitions attack the judgement from several angles. Head Digital Works, the parent of gaming platform A23, argues the case raised substantial constitutional questions that should have gone to a larger Constitution Bench rather than a two-judge bench and that the ruling contains errors serious enough to warrant reconsideration. A recurring theme across the petitions is timing: the companies contend GST should be triggered only when winnings are actually paid out to players, not the moment an entry fee changes hands, and that treating the 2023 amendments as retrospective effectively taxes transactions under a legal framework that didn't yet exist when they occurred. They also argue the ruling creates an unfair mismatch, taxing online games more harshly than comparable offline activity, and in Head Digital Works' filing that the judgement glosses over the industry's long-standing constitutional protection for skill-based businesses under Article 19(1)(g).

A Sector Already on the Ropes

What makes this legal battle unusually high-stakes is that it isn't happening in isolation. In August 2025, Parliament passed the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, banning all online real-money games nationwide regardless of whether they involve skill, chance, or a mix of both while carving out room for e-sports and social gaming. That law is itself under constitutional challenge, with hearings before a three-judge bench expected this year. So the same companies fighting a ₹1.5 trillion tax bill for games they used to run are simultaneously fighting for the right to run those games at all going forward. Add to this that GST on the relevant category of actionable claims was separately hiked to 40% in September 2025 as part of a broader rate overhaul, and it's clear the ground has shifted well beyond what the industry anticipated when this dispute began.

What Comes Next

The Supreme Court will first decide whether these petitions clear the threshold for review, a high bar by design, since courts are wary of turning review into a backdoor appeal. If the bench finds no fresh ground, the May 27 judgement becomes final, and companies will be left negotiating settlements, instalment plans, or insolvency proceedings against tax bills that, in several cases, exceed what they've ever earned. If the Court does find merit, it could reopen questions that reshape not just the gaming industry's tax liability but the constitutional line between what states can regulate as "betting and gambling" and what Parliament can tax as a national digital service.

Either way, the outcome will be watched well beyond the gaming world. Any digital business that collects money from users against an uncertain outcome from fantasy sports to prediction markets to certain fintech products has a stake in how the court defines "actionable claim" and how far a "clarificatory" amendment can legally reach into the past. Tax authorities, for their part, will be watching just as closely: a win here reinforces a template they've already begun applying to other sectors accused of restructuring around narrow tax definitions.

There's also an investor angle that tends to get lost in the legal jargon. Real-money gaming in India attracted billions of dollars in foreign investment over the past decade, built on the premise that skill-based games occupied a legitimate, constitutionally protected business category distinct from gambling. Between the May verdict and the PROGA ban, that premise has effectively collapsed within the space of a year. Whether or not the review petitions succeed, the episode is likely to be studied as a cautionary tale about regulatory and tax risk in India's digital economy, a reminder that a business model resting on a legal distinction is only as durable as a court's willingness to keep drawing that line.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision will extend far beyond the gaming industry, shaping India's approach to digital taxation, regulatory certainty, and investor confidence. For now, the ball is back in the Supreme Court's hands, and the industry has staked its remaining legal capital on convincing the same bench that got it here to think again.

Sources

• Online gaming firms move Supreme Court seeking review of verdict upholding 28% GST levy — ANI News
• Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 — Wikipedia
• Anti-gambling act targets real-money gaming — Law.asia
• Behind the Ban: The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 — Lexology

‍

Introduction

‍

The courts in India have repeatedly emphasised the importance of “enhanced customer protection” and “limited liability” on their part. The rationale behind such imperatives is to extend security against exploitation by institutions that are equipped with all the means to manipulate customers. India, with its looming financial literacy gaps that have to be addressed, needs to curb any manipulation on the part of banking institutions. Various studies have highlighted this gap in recent times; for example, according to the National Centre for Financial Education, only 27% of Indian people are financially literate, which is much less than the 42% global average. With only 19% of millennials exhibiting sufficient financial awareness yet expressing high trust in their financial skills, the issue is very worrisome. Thus, the increasing number of financial frauds intensifies the issue. 

Zero Liability in Cyber Frauds: Regulatory Safeguards for Digital Banking Customers

‍

In light of the growing emphasis on financial inclusion and consumer protection, and in response to the recent rise in complaints regarding unauthorised debits from customer accounts and cards, the framework for assessing customer liability in such cases has been re-evaluated. The RBI’s circular dated July 6, 2017 titled “Customer Protection-Limited Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions”  serves as the foundation for regulatory protections for Indian customers of digital banking. A clear and organised framework for determining customer accountability is outlined in the circular, which acknowledges the exponential increase in electronic transactions and related scams. It assigns proportional obligations for unauthorised transactions resulting from system-level breaches, client carelessness, and bank contributory negligence. Most importantly it establishes the zero responsibility concept, which protects clients from monetary losses in cases when the bank or another system component is at fault and the client promptly reports the breach. 

This directive’s sophisticated approach to consumer protection is what makes it unique. It requires banks to set up strong fraud prevention systems, proactive alerting systems, and round-the-clock reporting systems. Furthermore, it significantly alters the power dynamics between financial institutions and customers by placing the onus of demonstrating customer negligence completely on the bank. The circular emphasises prompt reversal of funds to impacted customers and requires banks to implement Board-approved policies on liability to redress. As a result, it is a consumer rights charter rather than just a compliance document, promoting confidence and financial accountability in India’s digital banking sector. 

Judicial Endorsement in Reinforcing the Zero Liability Principle

‍

 In the case of Suresh Chandra Negi & Anr. v. Bank of Baroda & Ors. (Writ (C) No. 24192 of 2022) The Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that the burden of proving consumer accountability rests firmly on the banking institution, hence reaffirming the zero liability concept in circumstances of unapproved electronic banking transactions. The Division bench emphasised the regulatory requirement that banks provide adequate proof before assigning blame to customers, citing Clause 12 of the RBI’s circular dated June 6, 2017, Customer Protection—Limited Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions. In a similar scenario, the Bombay HC held that a customer is entitled to zero liability when an authorized transaction occurs due to a third-party breach, where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor the customer, provided the fraud is promptly reported. 

The zero liability principle, as envisaged under Clause 8 of the RBI circular, has emerged as a cornerstone of consumer protection in India’s digital banking ecosystem.  

Another landmark judgment that has given this principle the front stage in addressing banking frauds is Hare Ram Singh vs RBI &Ors. (W.P. (C) 13497/2022) laid down by Delhi HC which is an important legal turning point in the development of the zero liability principle under the RBI’s 2017 framework. The court reiterated the need to evaluate customer diligence in light of new fraud tactics like phishing and vishing by holding the State Bank of India (SBI) liable for a cyber fraud incident even though the transactions were authenticated by OTP. The ruling made it clear that when complex social engineering or technical manipulation is used, banks are nonetheless accountable even if they only rely on OTP validation. The legal protection provided to victims of unauthorised electronic banking transactions is strengthened by the court’s emphasis on the bank having the burden of evidence in accordance with RBI standards. 

Importantly, this ruling lays the full burden of securing digital banking systems on financial organisations and supports the judiciary’s increasing acknowledgement of the digital asymmetry between banks and consumers. It emphasises that prompt consumer reporting, banks’ failure to disclose important credentials, and their own operational errors must all be taken into consideration when determining culpability. As a result, this decision establishes a strong precedent that will increase consumer confidence, promote systemic advancements in digital risk management, and better integrate the zero liability standard into Indian digital banking law. In a time when cyber vulnerabilities are growing, it acts as a beacon for financial accountability. 

Conclusion

‍

The Zero Liability Principle serves as a vital safety net for customers navigating an increasingly intricate and precarious financial environment in a time when digital transactions are the foundation of contemporary banking. In addition to codifying strong safeguards against unauthorized electronic transactions, the RBI’s 2017 framework rebalanced  the fiduciary relationship by putting financial institutions squarely in charge. Through significant rulings, the courts have upheld this protective culture and emphasised that banks, not the victims of cybercrime, bear the burden of proof. 

It would be crucial to execute these principles consistently, review them frequently, and raise public awareness as India transitions to a more digital economy. In order to ensure that consumers are not only protected but also empowered must become more than just a policy on paper. 

‍

References

• https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/making-money-vs-managing-money-india-s-critical-financial-literacy-gap-125021900786_1.html 
• https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-ruling-bank-liability-unauthorized-electronic-transaction-and-customer-fault-297962 
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/white-collar-crime-anti-corruption-fraud/1635616/cyber-law-series-2-issue-10-the-zero-liability-principle-in-cyber-fraud-hare-ram-singh-v-reserve-bank-of-india-ors-case 

‍

Executive Summary:

‍

Social media has been overwhelmed by a viral post that claims Indian Railways is beginning to install solar panels directly on railway tracks all over the country for renewable energy purposes. The claim also purports that India will become the world's first country to undertake such a green effort in railway systems. Our research involved extensive reverse image searching, keyword analysis, government website searches, and global media verification. We found the claim to be completely false. The viral photos and information are all incorrectly credited to India. The images are actually from a pilot project by a Swiss start-up called Sun-Ways.

Claim:

‍
According to a viral post on social media, Indian Railways has started an all-India initiative to install solar panels directly on railway tracks to generate renewable energy, limit power expenses, and make global history in environmentally sustainable rail operations.

Fact check:

‍
We did a reverse image search of the viral image and were soon directed to international media and technology blogs referencing a project named Sun-Ways, based in Switzerland. The images circulated on Indian social media were the exact ones from the Sun-Ways pilot project, whereby a removable system of solar panels is being installed between railway tracks in Switzerland to evaluate the possibility of generating energy from rail infrastructure.

‍

‍

We also thoroughly searched all the official Indian Railways websites, the Ministry of Railways news article, and credible Indian media. At no point did we locate anything mentioning Indian Railways engaging or planning something similar by installing solar panels on railway tracks themselves.

Indian Railways has been engaged in green energy initiatives beyond just solar panel installation on program rooftops, and also on railway land alongside tracks and on train coach roofs. However, Indian Railways have never installed solar panels on railway tracks in India. Meanwhile, we found a report of solar panel installations on the train launched on 14th July 2025, first solar-powered DEMU (diesel electrical multiple unit) train from the Safdarjung railway station in Delhi. The train will run from Sarai Rohilla in Delhi to Farukh Nagar in Haryana. A total of 16 solar panels, each producing 300 Wp, are fitted in six coaches. 

‍

‍

‍

‍

We also found multiple links to support our claim from various media links: Euro News, World Economy Forum, Institute of Mechanical Engineering, and  NDTV.   

‍

Conclusion:

‍

After extensive research conducted through several phases including examining facts and some technical facts, we can conclude that the claim that Indian Railways has installed solar panels on railway tracks is false. The concept and images originate from Sun-Ways, a Swiss company that was testing this concept in Switzerland, not India. 

Indian Railways continues to use renewable energy in a number of forms but has not put any solar panels on railway tracks. We want to highlight how important it is to fact-check viral content and other unverified content.

• Claim: India’s solar track project will help Indian Railways run entirely on renewable energy.‍
• Claimed On: Social Media‍
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

‍

‍