#FactCheck - AI-Generated Image Falsely Shows Mohammed Siraj Offering Namaz During Net Practice
A photo circulating on social media claims to show Indian cricketer Mohammed Siraj offering namaz during net practice, while teammates Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli and Shubman Gill are seen taking a selfie with him. Several users are sharing the image as a “beautiful moment,” portraying it as a symbol of faith, unity and sportsmanship. However, research by the Cyber Peace Foundation has found that the viral image is not genuine and has been AI-generated.
Claim
On January 14, 2026, multiple Facebook users shared the viral image with captions describing it as a touching scene from Rajkot’s Saurashtra Stadium. The posts claim that Mohammed Siraj took time out during net practice to offer prayers, reflecting his strong faith, while fellow cricketers Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli and Shubman Gill respectfully captured the moment on camera.
Users praised the image as a rare blend of spirituality, discipline, teamwork and mutual respect, calling it a “beautiful confluence of sport and faith.”(Links to the post, archived version and screenshots are provided below.)
Fact Check:
On closely examining the viral image, several visual inconsistencies and unnatural elements were observed, raising suspicion that the picture may not be authentic.To verify this, the Cyber Peace Foundation analysed the image using the AI detection tool Hive Moderation. According to the tool’s assessment, the image showed a 99% likelihood of being AI-generated.
To further strengthen the verification, the image was also scanned using another AI detection platform, Sightengine. The results indicated a 96% probability that the image was generated using artificial intelligence.
Conclusion:
The research confirms that the viral image claiming to show Mohammed Siraj offering namaz during net practice, with Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli and Shubman Gill taking a selfie, is not real.The photograph has been created using AI tools and falsely shared on social media, misleading users by presenting a fabricated scene as an authentic moment.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
A social media post about the shooting incident during a dinner event for journalists covering the White House is going viral with the claim that the attacker was a Muslim man who was shot dead by security personnel. The accompanying video shows panic inside a hall and alert security officials responding to the situation. wHowever, research by the CyberPeace Research Wing found that the claim is false and misleading. The video is being shared with incorrect information about the identity and fate of the suspect.
Claim:
An Instagram user shared the video on April 26, 2026, claiming that the attacker who targeted Donald Trump was a “jihadi” named Mohammad Ibrahim and that he was killed after being shot multiple times.
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, relevant keyword searches were conducted online.
A report published by BBC on April 28, 2026, stated that the suspect accused of attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump during the Washington dinner event was identified as Cole Thomas Allen. The report said Allen lived with his parents in Los Angeles and was produced in court on April 28.
According to court documents cited in the report, Allen rushed past a security checkpoint carrying a semi-automatic handgun, a pump-action shotgun, and three knives. Authorities said one Secret Service agent was injured during the incident before Allen was subdued and taken into custody. A separate report published by NBC News on April 26, 2026, also identified the accused as Cole Thomas Allen and included visuals from the incident, showing the suspect after his arrest.
Conclusion:
The claim that the White House dinner party attacker was a Muslim man named Mohammad Ibrahim is false. The accused has been identified as Cole Thomas Allen, and he was arrested after the incident. Claims that he was killed are also incorrect.
Introduction
In the contemporary information environment, misinformation has emerged as a subtle yet powerful force capable of shaping public perception, influencing behavior, and undermining institutional credibility. Unlike overt falsehoods, misinformation often gains traction because it appears authentic, familiar, and authoritative. The rapid circulation of content through digital platforms has intensified this challenge, allowing altered or misleading material to reach wide audiences before verification mechanisms can respond. When misinformation mimics official communication, its impact becomes especially concerning, as citizens tend to place implicit trust in documents that carry the appearance of state authority. This growing vulnerability of public information systems was illustrated by the calendar incident in Himachal Pradesh in January 2026.
The calendar incident of Himachal Pradesh in January 2026 shows how a small lie can lead to large social and governance problems. A person whose identity is still unknown posted a modified version of the Government Calendar 2026, changing the official dates and resulting in public confusion and reputational damage to the Printing and Stationery Department. The incident may not appear very serious at first sight, but it indicates a deeper systemic issue. Misinformation is posing increasing dangers to public information ecosystems, especially when official documents are misrepresented and disseminated through digital platforms.
Misinformation as a Governance Challenge
Government calendars and official documents are necessary for public awareness and administrative coordination, and their manipulation impedes the credibility of institutions and the trustworthiness of governance. In Himachal Pradesh, modified dates might have led to confusion regarding public holidays, interference in school and administrative planning, and misinformation among the people. Such misinformation is a direct interference in the social contract that exists between the citizens and the State, where accurate information is the foundation of trust, compliance, and participation.
Impact on Citizens: Confusion, Distrust, and Digital Fatigue
For the general public, the dissemination of fake government information leads to a situation where people are confused and, at the same time, lose their trust in the government communication channels. If someone continuously gets to see the changed or misleading information misrepresented as credible, that person will find it hard to differentiate the truth from lies in the end.
This results in:
- Decision paralysis occurs when the public cannot make up their minds and either postpones or refrains from action due to the doubts they have
- Erosion of trust, not only in one department but also in the whole government communications department
- Digital fatigue occurs when people stop following public information completely, since they think that all content can be unreliable
Misinformation in a digital society is not limited to one platform only. It spreads quickly through direct messaging apps, community groups, and social networks, thus creating greater confusion among people before the official clarifications can reach the same audience.
Institutional Harm and Reputational Damage
The intentional tampering with official documents is not only a violation of ethics but also a crime and an immoral act from a governance perspective. The Printing and Stationery Department noted that such practices tarnish the public image of government bodies, which are based on accuracy, neutrality, and trust.
When untrue material gets to be known as official content:
- Departments have to communicate reactively.
- Money and manpower that could have been used for the normal administrative work are now spent on the control of the situation.
The registration of a First Information Report (FIR) in this matter is an indication of the gradual shift in the perception of law enforcement agencies that misinformation is not a playful act but rather a technology-assisted crime with serious consequences.
The Role of Verifiable Information and Trusted Sources
Such occurrences stress the need for trustworthy information as well as confirmed sources to be at the centre of the digital era. It should be the responsibility of the authorities to lead the citizens to practice and ENABLING to depend on official websites, verified social media accounts, government portals, and press releases for authentication.
Platform Responsibility and Digital Literacy
The spread of misinformation poses a significant challenge for social media platforms, which frequently amplify highly engaging content. There are some ways that the social media networks can try to limit the damage, and these are: tagging of non-verified material, limiting the sharing and working with authorities in the area of fact-checking support. However, one more thing which is crucial here is ‘public knowledge’ about digital platforms, as even unintentional dissemination of fake “official” materials can lead to legal and social repercussions. The advice of the Himachal state government is a good thing, but constantly informing the public is still a requirement.
Legal Accountability as a Deterrent
The active participation of the Cyber Crime Cells unequivocally indicates that digital misinformation, especially involving government documents, will face severe consequences. The establishment of legal responsibility acts as a preventive measure and reiterates the notion that the right to speak one's mind does not cover the right to lie or undermine public institutions. Nonetheless, to have an effective enforcement, it has to be accompanied by preventive actions such as good communication, strong governance, and public trust-building. Consistent enforcement against digital misinformation can contribute to greater accountability within society. Digital Literacy programs should be conducted periodically for netizens and institutions.
Conclusion
The incident of the creation of fake calendars in Himachal Pradesh served as a signal for the authorities to adopt accurate communication strategies. The ratification of misinformation can be achieved only if there is shared participation of governments, digital platforms, citizens and civil societies. The main goal of all this is to maintain public trust and the dissemination of information in democratic processes.
Introduction
On June 2, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order called "Promoting Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security." The order tells federal agencies to improve cyber defences against AI-based threats and creates a system where AI companies can choose to let the government access powerful new models before they are released to the public. This happens as the U.S. and China are in a heated competition to lead the next generation of AI. While the order only affects the United States, its impact could reach the global AI industry, including India.
What Does the Executive Order Do?
The White House order focuses on three areas: First, it aims to upgrade government cyber security. Federal agencies must strengthen their information systems with AI-enabled defences within 30 days. Cyber Security and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) will issue new guidelines for civilian agencies, and an AI Cyber security Clearinghouse will be established for the government and private companies to share and resolve software vulnerabilities.
Second, the order introduces a voluntary pre-release review process for advanced AI models. Before a new model is publicly available, AI companies can give the government up to 30 days to evaluate it for cyber security risks. An earlier draft proposed a 90-day review period, but this was cut back due to feedback from the technology industry. The government will also create classified benchmarks to figure out which models qualify as a “covered frontier model” and are therefore subject to this review process.
Finally, the order emphasises criminal enforcement. It prioritises legal action against those who use AI tools to commit cybercrimes.
According to the White House, the aim is to promote AI innovation and security by collaborating with the private sector to modernise government and private information systems and protect them from external threats.
Why Does This Matter Globally?
- AI Is Now a National Security Issue Until recently, most governments viewed AI as an economic or scientific issue. This order officially changes that for the United States, placing advanced AI alongside other sensitive technologies that need government oversight before deployment. When the world's largest military makes this change, other governments pay attention. Countries allied with or partnering with the U.S. will likely revisit their own AI governance frameworks in the months ahead.
- Two Competing Models for the World The U.S. and EU represent two different approaches to AI governance. The EU AI Act lays down strict rules, is focused on ethics, and requires heavy compliance. The US approach is lighter on ethics, promoting voluntary cooperation, prioritising security, and encouraging innovation. Countries developing their own AI policies will either continue to align with one of these models or take ideas from both. The Atlantic Council has pointed out that if the U.S. model is successful, it could influence international security standards for AI development, even without formal global agreements.
- The China Factor Trump initially delayed signing the order, worried it would slow down American companies and give China an edge. The final version avoids mandatory licensing requirements but clearly indicates that the U.S. aims to lead, not only in building AI but also in securing it. China is likely to respond by speeding up its own evaluation systems, creating another global framework.
What Could This Mean for India?
India has taken a careful, non-mandatory approach to AI governance. MeitY's India AI Governance Guidelines, issued in November 2025, are based on principles and are not binding. India's AI Safety Institute has been announced but is not fully operational. Efforts to create binding regulation have been seen in actions like the Private Member's Bill, the AI Ethics and Accountability Bill, 2025, introduced in the Lok Sabha. This bill suggests mandatory reviews for high-risk AI systems but has not been passed yet. It's important to note that groups like the AI Governance Expert Group (AIGEG) and the Technology and Policy Expert Committee (TPEC) serve only in an advisory role; they do not have legislative power. As a result, nothing binding has been implemented so far. The Trump order puts additional pressure on India to pass measurable, binding AI-security-related measures. As AI use increases in banking, healthcare, telecommunications, and government services and frontier AI models continue to evolve without global oversight, stronger security evaluation methods are becoming necessary, especially in critical sectors.
Recent events prove this need. In June 2026, a Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack hit the CBSE's On-Screen Marking portal. It saw 1.5 million requests in two minutes and over one lakh unauthorised file access attempts targeting a system used by millions of students. Similar attacks have impacted AIIMS Delhi and other public digital infrastructure. As AI tools make these attacks easier to carry out, security testing before deployment can no longer be seen as optional.
For Indian AI companies aiming at global markets, the U.S. framework is also important for business. Standards that are set voluntarily in Washington often become necessary for international partnerships and contracts.
Conclusion
Trump's AI cyber security order signals a shift. A government that resisted regulating AI has now recognised that powerful models need oversight before they reach the public. Its immediate impact affects U.S. agencies and developers. However, the broader message is that advanced AI is a national security concern. This will influence policy conversations around the world. For India, the priority is to develop its own security evaluation capacity now, rather than waiting to adopt frameworks created for other contexts.
References
- White House Executive Order, "Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security," June 2, 2026
- Federal Register — Executive Order Publication, June 5, 2026
- Council on Foreign Relations — Assessing Trump's Executive Order on AI Oversight, June 4, 2026
- Atlantic Council — Reading Between the Lines of Trump's New Executive Order on AI, June 3, 2026
- Times of India — Donald Trump Passes AI Cyber security Order
- MeitY India AI Governance Guidelines, November 2025
- AI Ethics and Accountability Bill, 2025 — Explained
- NPR — Trump Signs EO Seeking Early Government Access to Powerful AI Models
