#FactCheck: Viral Video Falsely Linked to Delhi Police Assault on Female Journalist Is From a Movie Shoot
Executive Summary
A video is being widely shared on social media with the claim that a female journalist was assaulted by the Delhi Police. The video is being shared with the claim that a female police officer from the Delhi Police is seen assaulting and misbehaving with a female journalist. In the video, a woman wearing a police uniform can be seen allegedly assaulting another woman. Research by the Research Wing of CyberPeace found that the video is actually from a movie shoot. Social media users are sharing it with a misleading claim.
Claim
Social media users shared the video with the caption: “A female journalist is being beaten up by the Delhi Police. What will happen to ordinary people?”
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1599067985010003
https://archive.ph/mgCqt
Fact Check
While investigating the video being shared with the claim that a female journalist was assaulted by the Delhi Police, we conducted a reverse image search of its keyframes. During the search, we found the same video on a Facebook page called ‘CineEdge Media-Behind the Scenes’. The video was uploaded on the page on June 26, 2026. The description and hashtags used with the video indicate that it is not footage of an actual police action, but is related to a film shoot.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1542614027395118
In addition, the bio of the aforementioned Facebook page states that it posts videos featuring film acting sequences, action thrillers, and behind-the-scenes footage from movies
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61578948364025&sk=reels_tab
As part of the research, we also examined the CineEdge Media YouTube account. We found that the account has uploaded videos related to films and acting
Conclusion
The evidence gathered during our research makes it clear that the video being shared with the claim that a female journalist was assaulted by the Delhi Police is actually footage from a movie shoot. The video was found on a social media page that shares film-related content, including acting sequences, action scenes and behind-the-scenes footage. Therefore, the claim that the video shows a female journalist being assaulted by the Delhi Police is misleading.
Related Blogs
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
Executive Summary:
A viral post on social media shared with misleading captions about a National Highway being built with large bridges over a mountainside in Jammu and Kashmir. However, the investigation of the claim shows that the bridge is from China. Thus the video is false and misleading.
Claim:
A video circulating of National Highway 14 construction being built on the mountain side in Jammu and Kashmir.
Fact Check:
Upon receiving the image, Reverse Image Search was carried out, an image of an under-construction road, falsely linked to Jammu and Kashmir has been proven inaccurate. After investigating we confirmed the road is from a different location that is G6911 Ankang-Laifeng Expressway in China, highlighting the need to verify information before sharing.
Conclusion:
The viral claim mentioning under-construction Highway from Jammu and Kashmir is false. The post is actually from China and not J&K. Misinformation like this can mislead the public. Before sharing viral posts, take a brief moment to verify the facts. This highlights the importance of verifying information and relying on credible sources to combat the spread of false claims.
- Claim: Under-Construction Road Falsely Linked to Jammu and Kashmir
- Claimed On: Instagram and X (Formerly Known As Twitter)
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
Introduction
India’s data centre sector is rapidly emerging as strategic national infrastructure at the centre of the country’s AI ambitions, fuelled by a combination of technological advancements and the global political economy. Estimates suggest that national data centre capacity is expected to rise from 1.2 GW in 2025 to almost 8 GW by 2030. With a funding of ₹10,372 crore, the IndiaAI Mission aims to establish domestic compute power and expand GPU infrastructure throughout the nation. Simultaneously, the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 has introduced a form of “soft localisation,” empowering the government to mandate domestic storage for sensitive categories of data.
Together, this push for infrastructure aims to transform India from a passive data market into an active shaper of global data flows. Yet India’s current policy model differs significantly from the approaches being adopted in other major digital economies. A comparison with Singapore and the European Union reveals that while India is focused on aggressive data centre expansion, other jurisdictions are increasingly prioritising sustainability, efficiency, and digital sovereignty.
This raises a critical policy question: can India scale its AI infrastructure ambitions while accounting for the governance and resource challenges that other markets are now attempting to correct?
India’s Incentive-Led AI Infrastructure Push
India’s current approach to data centre expansion is fundamentally facilitative. The state is acting as an enabler of rapid private investment through fiscal incentives and infrastructure prioritisation.
The Union Budget 2022 had classified data centres as “infrastructure,” which enables developers to access cheaper institutional financing and long-term capital. The Union Budget 2026 further introduced tax holidays for foreign cloud providers using Indian facilities for global operations. At the state level, governments such as Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh are aggressively competing to attract hyperscale investments through electricity duty exemptions, expedited approvals, and “essential service” status designed to guarantee uninterrupted operations.
This approach reflects India’s broader strategic positioning. As global demand for AI compute accelerates, India seeks to establish itself not only as a major digital market, but as a sovereign compute hub for the Global South.
The IndiaAI Mission demonstrates this ambition clearly. By seeking to scale domestic GPU capacity to 100,000 units, the government is recognising that compute infrastructure is increasingly becoming geopolitically strategic. AI leadership will now depend on the ability to control and secure the physical infrastructure powering advanced AI systems.
However, while India’s policy framework strongly incentivises capacity creation, it remains relatively underdeveloped in areas such as sustainability benchmarks, resource management, and operational accountability.
Singapore and the European Union: Governance After Scale
Singapore and the European Union offer models of digital infrastructure governance as rapid infrastructure growth starts to raise resource and sovereignty issues.
With the limited energy resources and land at its disposal, Singapore has shifted from unrestricted data centre growth to a tightly managed sustainability-first model. Through the Data Centre Call for Application (DC-CFA) framework, only projects meeting strict efficiency and economic value criteria are approved. For instance, new facilities are expected to maintain Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) levels of 1.3 or lower and submit detailed water efficiency plans to comply with advanced environmental standards. The country has also developed tropical cooling standards that allow facilities to run at higher ambient temperatures, reducing cooling energy consumption significantly. Rather than uninhibited growth, Singapore is now geared towards growth efficiency.
The European Union, on the other hand, is pursuing a sovereignty-oriented governance model in response to geopolitical pressures. However, it is still introducing energy reporting requirements and waste heat recovery rules into digital infrastructure rules through the revised Energy Efficiency Directive and proposed EU Cloud and AI Development Act. Simultaneously, the Digital Markets Act (DMA) is being used to investigate hyperscale cloud providers for potential “gatekeeper” behaviour, reflecting concerns about excessive concentration of digital infrastructure power in the hands of a few non-European firms. This approach shows that sovereignty and energy efficiency can go hand-in-hand.
These models illustrate an important trend: digital infrastructure governance is shifting from the promotion of investment to sustainability, competition regulation and strategic autonomy.
India’s Emerging Governance Challenge
India’s current trajectory and global geopolitical tensions suggest that pressures regarding sustainability and sovereignty are set to intensify over the next decade.
AI infrastructure is resource-intensive by design. For example, a single modern AI server rack can consume up to 250 kilowatts (kW) of power, compared to a traditional enterprise server rack which typically requires only 15 kW. Despite the use of water use effectiveness (WUE) technologies, the sheer volume of heat transfer means that AI data centres can still put immense pressure on local water resources, especially in warmer climates. These figures juxtaposed against hyperscale clusters mean the volumes of electricity, cooling systems, land, water, and high-density compute rise by significant orders of magnitude. Yet most Indian policies remain overwhelmingly focused on fiscal incentives rather than long-term resource governance.
This creates the risk of a reactive policy cycle in which sustainability standards are introduced only after resource pressures become acute. Urban concentration, grid stress, water scarcity, and energy reliability may eventually force abrupt regulatory interventions which can lead to higher compliance costs and uncertainty in operations.
At the same time, India’s push for sovereign AI infrastructure also raises broader questions around digital sovereignty and institutional capacity. Procuring GPUs alone does not create an AI ecosystem. Secure hosting environments, skilled infrastructure personnel, cybersecurity preparedness, and interoperable governance mechanisms are equally essential.
This makes workforce development a strategic human resource development issue rather than simply an industrial challenge. Without sufficient thermal engineers, cybersecurity professionals, and digital infrastructure specialists, India’s infrastructure ambitions may struggle to translate into long-term resilience.
Building Governance into the Expansion Phase
India’s current “pre-regulatory” moment also presents a significant opportunity. Because the sector is still evolving, both policymakers and infrastructure actors have the ability to shape governance standards before constraints become restrictive.
It is vital to establishing national sustainability benchmarks through public-private technical partnerships, possibly under the aegis of of NITI Aayog, the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) and MeitY, before the next resource pressures dictate reactive regulation. Pilot “sustainability sandboxes” focused on liquid immersion cooling, renewable integration, battery energy storage systems, and water-efficient operations could help create evidence-based policy frameworks tailored to Indian conditions. Similarly, Likewise, collaborations with skilling institutions like NSDC and NIELIT can contribute to the development of dedicated digital infrastructure academies for thermal engineering, cybersecurity, and AI infrastructure management.
This would support India to progress towards a sovereign AI infrastructure stack, bringing together compute capacity, sustainability, capacity building and governance resilience into a seamless ecosystem.
Conclusion
With AI systems become increasingly utilised in finance, healthcare, governance, and public services, the infrastructure ecosystem supporting them will become equally politically and strategically significant. The choices India makes today to operationalise sustainability, skilling, competition, and sovereign compute capacity will shape the foundations of its future AI economy.
The central challenge is no longer whether India can become a major AI infrastructure hub. It is whether the country can transition from an incentive-led expansion model toward a governance framework that balances scale with sustainability, sovereignty, democratic accountability, and long-term resilience.
That transition may ultimately define the success of India’s AI century.
References
https://indiaai.gov.in/news/cabinet-approves-india-ai-mission-at-an-outlay-of-rs-10-372-crore
https://www.midcindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/IT-ITES_Policy_2015.pdf
https://uplc.up.gov.in/en/page/uttar-pradesh-data-center-policy
