#FactCheck - Assam Video Falsely Shared as BJP Government Deporting Bangladeshis From West Bengal

"India’s digital public infrastructure promises inclusion and efficiency. But when essential services depend on handing over data, children become legible to the state long before anyone listens to them."

India’s digital transformation deserves much of the praise it gets. Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) has taken public services to people at a scale few countries have managed. Still, one question gets less attention than it should: what happens when the state’s wish for a neatly administered citizen starts to override the rights of a child?

Aditi Pillai takes this up in From Principle(al) to Practice: The Child as a Datafied Digital Citizen in India’s Digital Public Infrastructure. She doesn’t argue against digital infrastructure. Her point is that its claim to serve the public can’t be separated from the power it holds over the people enrolled in it. The most obvious example is children. When they are persons with rights today, they run the risk of being reduced to administrative categories, data points and future projections. A child’s citizenship is suspended until adulthood. These days, identity, privacy and agency are important but digital governance frequently views childhood as something that needs to be tracked, controlled and maximised. 

Protection without participation

Pillai’s sharpest idea is what she calls “double paternalism.” She uses 49-story completion responses from parents who completed brief hypothetical situations regarding enrolling a child in a computerised system, as well as expert interviews. Her focus is on how parental and institutional power reinforce one another and prevent kids from making decisions about their own online life. 

Consider the Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry (APAAR), which provides a permanent academic identification for every student. Consolidating records may well help administrators. The harder questions are whether enrolment is truly voluntary, whether refusing carries a penalty, and whether a family can question how data is collected and linked without risking the child’s schooling.

The answers weren’t encouraging. Many parents either accepted enrolment despite their reservations or viewed it as a requirement that wasn’t worth challenging. Out of the 48, only four exhibited aggressive resistance and just one admitted that the adolescent in the scenario might have a voice. It is not appropriate to interpret this little qualitative study as a statistical representation of Indian parents. Nevertheless, it implies that there was never a choice and that obedience may be mistaken for informed agreement. 

That is the double edge. The state compels, or strongly nudges, parents to enrol their children. Parents then decide on the child’s behalf without involving them. Both layers claim to protect the child’s interests, and the child’s own voice is missing from both.

When convenience becomes compulsion

It is easy to treat digital systems as neutral tools. They aren’t. Every system embodies decisions about what is collected, which records are linked, who can see them, and what happens to someone who can’t or won’t comply.

Pillai points to what can follow when educational records are tied to identity systems. Persistent data trails can expose children to long-term profiling. Rigid identification rules can shut out those whose lives don’t fit the institutional template: children without reliable documents, those who have left abusive homes, those who can’t provide valid biometrics.

There is an irony here. A system built to make citizens more visible to the state can make its most vulnerable citizens less visible as people. When a child can’t meet the system’s requirements, the result is often exclusion, not accommodation.

All of this does not imply that India should abandon digital infrastructure.The true debate is whether people’s freedom of choice, privacy and equitable access should be sacrificed for efficiency.  A system can’t call itself inclusive if participation is compulsory in practice and the exceptions are badly designed.

Parents can’t carry this alone

Pillai also names “potentiality risk,” the worry that data gathered in childhood will quietly shape future opportunities, reputation or identity. A school record can outlast the circumstances that produced it. A bad year, once logged, may follow a student if institutions come to read them through a permanent digital profile.

Parents are left in an impossible spot. They are expected to guard their children against risks they may not fully understand and have little power to control. Responsibility slides from the institutions that build and run these systems to the families who must live with them. That is a weak form of accountability. Parental consent can’t justify every kind of data processing involving a child, and parents shouldn’t have to bargain one by one with schools or authorities when the alternative is losing an essential service.

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, treats children as a distinct category of data principals and requires verifiable parental consent, subject to its provisions and rules. That is a start. The deeper question remains: does a child-focused data regime only regulate what adults decide about children, or does it also leave room for children’s own evolving views and abilities? Protection without participation can turn into control by another name.

From data subjects to digital citizens

Pillai’s strategy is built on two interconnected concepts: a rights-based perspective of data justice rooted in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and participatory digital citizenship.

In actuality, this entails consulting kids before systems are developed rather than after. Parents need clear information and practical options to raise concerns about enrolment. Accessible grievance procedures, real alternatives when necessary and safeguards against exclusion are all necessary for institutions. Collection and linking of data should be proportionate to a legitimate purpose with clear accountability for how it is used later. Above all, the child’s best interests should be a standard that actually governs decisions, not a phrase invoked to excuse administrative convenience.

India’s digital ambitions and children’s rights don’t have to collide. A public system is best judged by how it treats the people least able to challenge it. The real test of a digital state is not how many people it can enrol or connect, but whether they keep their dignity and agency once inside. Children should not end up as records to be maintained or risks to be managed. They are citizens now, and their rights matter now.

References

1. Aditi Pillai, ‘From Principle(al) to Practice: The Child as a Datafied Digital Citizen in India’s Digital Public Infrastructure’ (2026) 22(2) Indian Journal of Law and Technology, Article 3. DOI: 10.55496/NFYV5618.
2. Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, s 9.
3. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990) 1577 UNTS 3.
4. Government of India, ‘G20 New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration’ (2023).

‍

Executive Summary:

The viral image in the social media which depicts fake injuries on the face of the MP(Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha) Kangana Ranaut alleged to have been beaten by a CISF officer at the Chandigarh airport. The reverse search of the viral image taken back to 2006, was part of an anti-mosquito commercial and does not feature the MP,  Kangana Ranaut. The findings contradict the claim that the photos are evidence of injuries resulting from the incident involving the MP, Kangana Ranaut. It is always important to verify the truthfulness of  visual content before sharing it, to prevent misinformation.

Claims:

The images circulating on social media platforms claiming the injuries on the MP, Kangana Ranaut’s face were because of an assault incident by a female CISF officer at Chandigarh airport. This claim hinted that the photos are evidence of the physical quarrel and resulting injuries suffered by  the MP, Kangana Ranaut.

‍

Fact Check:

When we received the posts, we reverse-searched the image and found another photo that looked similar to the viral one. We could verify through the earring in the viral image with the new image. 

The reverse image search revealed that the photo was originally uploaded in 2006 and is unrelated to the MP, Kangana Ranaut. It depicts a model in an advertisement for an anti-mosquito spray campaign.

We can validate this from the earrings in the photo after the comparison   between the two photos.

‍

Hence, we can confirm that the viral image of the injury mark of the MP, Kangana Ranaut has been debunked as fake and misleading, instead it has been cropped out from the original photo to misrepresent the context.

Conclusion:

Therefore, the viral photos on social media which claimed to be the results of injuries on the MP, Kangana Ranaut’s face after being assaulted allegedly by a CISF officer at the airport in Chandigarh were fake. Detailed analysis of the pictures provided the fact that the pictures have no connection with Ranaut; the picture was a 2006 anti-mosquito spray advertisement; therefore, the allegations that show these images as that of Ranaut’s injury are fake and misleading.

• Claim:  photos circulating on social media claiming to show injuries on the MP, Kangana Ranaut's face following an assault incident by a female CISF officer at Chandigarh airport.
• Claimed on: X (Formerly known as Twitter), thread, Facebook
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading

‍

Introduction

Beginning with the premise that the advent of the internet has woven a rich but daunting digital web, intertwining the very fabric of technology with the variegated hues of human interaction, the EU has stepped in as the custodian of this ever-evolving tableau. It is within this sprawling network—a veritable digital Minotaur's labyrinth—that the European Union has launched a vigilant quest, seeking not merely to chart its enigmatic corridors but to instil a sense of order in its inherent chaos.

The Digital Services Act (DSA) is the EU's latest testament to this determined pilgrimage, a voyage to assert dominion over the nebulous realms of cyberspace. In its latest sagacious move, the EU has levelled its regulatory lance at the behemoths of digital indulgence—Pornhub, XVideos, and Stripchat—monarchs in the realm of adult entertainment, each commanding millions of devoted followers.

Applicability of DSA

Graced with the moniker of Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs), these titans of titillation are now facing the complex weave of duties delineated by the DSA, a legislative leviathan whose coils envelop the shadowy expanses of the internet with an aim to safeguard its citizens from the snares and pitfalls ensconced within. Like a vigilant Minotaur, the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, stands steadfast, enforcing compliance with an unwavering gaze.

The DSA is more than a mere compilation of edicts; it encapsulates a deeper, more profound ethos—a clarion call announcing that the wild frontiers of the digital domain shall be tamed, transforming into enclaves where the sanctity of individual dignity and rights is zealously championed. The three corporations, singled out as the pioneers to be ensnared by the DSA's intricate net, are now beckoned to embark on an odyssey of transformation, realigning their operations with the EU's noble envisioning of a safeguarded internet ecosystem.

The Paradigm Shift

In a resolute succession, following its first decree addressing 19 Very Large Online Platforms and Search Engines, the Commission has now ensconced the trinity of adult content purveyors within the DSA's embrace. The act demands that these platforms establish intuitive user mechanisms for reporting illicit content, prioritize communications from entities bestowed with the 'trusted flaggers' title, and elucidate to users the rationale behind actions taken to restrict or remove content. Paramount to the DSA's ethos, they are also tasked with constructing internal mechanisms to address complaints, forthwith apprising law enforcement of content hinting at criminal infractions, and revising their operational underpinnings to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and security of minors.

But the aspirations of the DSA stretch farther, encompassing a realm where platforms are agents against deception and manipulation of users, categorically eschewing targeted advertisement that exploits sensitive profiling data or is aimed at impressionable minors. The platforms must operate with an air of diligence and equitable objectivity, deftly applying their terms of use, and are compelled to reveal their content moderation practices through annual declarations of transparency.

The DSA bestows upon the designated VLOPs an even more intensive catalogue of obligations. Within a scant four months of their designation, Pornhub, XVideos, and Stripchat are mandated to implement measures that both empower and shield their users—especially the most vulnerable, minors—from harms that traverse their digital portals. Augmented content moderation measures are requisite, with critical risk analyses and mitigation strategies directed at halting the spread of unlawful content, such as child exploitation material or the non-consensual circulation of intimate imagery, as well as curbing the proliferation and repercussions of deepfake-generated pornography.

The New Rules

The DSA enshrines the preeminence of protecting minors, with a staunch requirement for VLOPs to contrive their services so as to anticipate and enfeeble any potential threats to the welfare of young internet navigators. They must enact operational measures to deter access to pornographic content by minors, including the utilization of robust age verification systems. The themes of transparency and accountability are amplified under the DSA's auspices, with VLOPs subject to external audits of their risk assessments and adherence to stipulations, the obligation to maintain accessible advertising repositories, and the provision of data access to rigorously vetted researchers.

Coordinated by the Commission in concert with the Member States' Digital Services Coordinators, vigilant supervision will be maintained to ensure the scrupulous compliance of Pornhub, Stripchat, and XVideos with the DSA's stringent directives. The Commission's services are poised to engage with the newly designated platforms diligently, affirming that initiatives aimed at shielding minors from pernicious content, as well as curbing the distribution of illegal content, are effectively addressed.

The EU's monumental crusade, distilled into the DSA, symbolises a pledge—a testament to its steadfast resolve to shepherd cyberspace, ensuring the Minotaur of regulation keeps the bedlam at a manageable compass and the sacrosanctity of the digital realm inviolate for all who meander through its infinite expanses. As we cast our gazes toward February 17, 2024—the cusp of the DSA's comprehensive application—it is palpable that this legislative milestone is not simply a set of guidelines; it stands as a bold, unflinching manifesto. It beckons the advent of a novel digital age, where every online platform, barring small and micro-enterprises, will be enshrined in the lofty ideals imparted by the DSA.

Conclusion

As we teeter on the edge of this nascent digital horizon, it becomes unequivocally clear: the European Union's Digital Services Act is more than a mundane policy—it is a pledge, a resolute statement of purpose, asserting that amid the vast, interwoven tapestry of the internet, each user's safety, dignity, and freedoms are enshrined and hold the intrinsic significance meriting the force of the EU's legislative guard. Although the labyrinth of the digital domain may be convoluted with complexity, guided by the DSA's insightful thread, the march toward a more secure, conscientious online sphere forges on—resolute, unerring, one deliberate stride at a time.

References

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_6763https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/three-of-the-biggest-porn-sites-must-verify-ages-under-eus-new-digital-law-1566874.html