#FactCheck - Debunking Viral Photo: Tears of Photographer Not Linked to Ram Mandir Opening

Procedural History: 

‍

The case started with a 2011 Madras High Court ruling that included the appellant’s personal information. In the case discussed, the court decided in 2024, the appellant went to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court to request that his name and other identifying information from that previous ruling be redacted. He argued that his right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution was violated by the ongoing release of such private information into the public arena. He claimed that the revelation had hurt him in real ways, such as having his application for an Australian visa denied. Therefore, without compromising the ideals of open justice, the current procedures aimed to have the court recognize a person’s “Right to be Forgotten” within a broader framework of privacy and data protection.

‍

Background and Factual Matrix

‍

The appellant was charged under Sections 417 and 376 of the IPC. The trial court convicted him in 201, but later, the High Court in 2014 fully, completely and unconditionally acquitted him, which was not based on the benefit of doubt. Following the acquittal, he remarried and has three children. The judgment of both the High Court and the Trial Court has personal and intimate details about him. Being available in the public domain has caused him significant repercussions, as he was denied a visa to travel to Australia by authorities, citing the criminal cases. The appellant has filed a plea seeking a mandamus directing the Registrar General, Additional Registrar General, and Registrar (IT-Statistics) as R1, R2, R3 to redact his name and other identities from the acquittal judgment. He has sought a direction from Ikanoon Software Development Private Limited (R4) to reflect the redaction in its publication. 

‍

Issue 

‍

1. Whether a writ of mandamus can lie against a High Court for redaction of personal details from its own judgment, or does such a prayer tantamount to a High Court issuing a writ against itself?
2. Whether the High Court, being a Court of Record under Article 215 of the Indian Constitution, is entitled to preserve its record for perpetuity in its original form without any modification or redaction?
3. Whether the ‘Right to be Forgotten' can be recognised and enforced in the absence of a specific statutory provision or Supreme Court direction, given that it constitutes an exception to the fundamental principle of open courts and open justice?

‍

Adjudication and Reasoning

The division bench has allowed the Writ appeal and granted the following relief:

1. R4 directed to take down the judgment in Crl.A. (MD) No.321 of 2011 dated 30.04.2014 forthwith.
2. R1 to R3 directed to redact the name and other details of the Writ Petitioner relating to his identity from the judgment dated 30.04.2014 in Crl.A.(MD) No. 321 of 2011 and ensure that only the redacted judgment is available for publication or for uploading.

‍

Rule 

‍

1. Courts have a wide discretion in deciding whether to allow redaction or not. Such discretion can either be granted at the request of the party seeking redaction or, in appropriate cases, even suo moto by the court.
2. The accused who have earned full, complete and unconditional acquittal without any benefit of doubt have a legitimate claim to move forward for redaction of personal information.
3. The open Court doesn’t require absolute disclosure of all personal information, and the courts, while deciding the concern of privacy and the right to ensure that in litigations to leave behind parts of their past which are no longer relevant, have to balance the concept of open Court on the one hand and privacy concerns of a citizen on the other.
4. As the High Court is the repository of a wide range of information and is entitled to preserve the original record in perpetuity. However, without diluting the sanctity of the original record, the public reflection of that record can be moderated to preserve the privacy of the person to whom that record pertains.

‍

Reasoning 

‍

1. Drawing on the judgment K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the court found Article 21 to protect not only informational privacy but also the "right to be forgotten," which gives individuals the right to request the deletion of any personal data when there is no longer any legitimate public interest in retaining such information. Such irreparable reputational damage is thus an infringement on constitutional privacy that demands judicial redaction. 
2. The court rejected the argument that a writ against its own order is impermissible, drawing a distinction between challenging the legal correctness of a judgment and seeking redaction of personal information. Allowing redaction will not question the validity of the judgment; rather, it will simply change its public appearance to ensure privacy.
3. Since a High Court is a Court of Record with an obligation to preserve its judgments in their unaltered form forever, the court held here that such internal maintenance of complete records was not incompatible with the issuance of a redacted public version. Institutional integrity is maintained when the original kept in the archives is supplemented with a public version that masks the privacy areas.
4. Open justice principles work to establish transparency, accountability, and public confidence, but these are not absolute. The court took a proportionality stance: personal identifiers, where they neither educate nor have precedential value and continue to inflict harm, may be expunged without affecting the established legal principles of judgment.
5. Although the DPDP Act exempts courts from several statutory obligations, the court held that it can, by virtue of its inherent discretion, protect personal data, and in so doing, exercise that power without the need for any legislative command. Traditionally the Madras High Court rules provide for the possibility of restriction of certified copies, thus establishing redaction as feasible both legally and administratively.

‍

Introduction

The rise of misinformation, disinformation, and synthetic media content on the internet and social media platforms has raised serious concerns, emphasizing the need for responsible use of social media to maintain information accuracy and combat misinformation incidents. With online misinformation rampant all over the world, the World Economic Forum's 2024 Global Risk Report, notably ranks India amongst the highest in terms of risk of mis/disinformation. 

The widespread online misinformation on social media platforms necessitates a joint effort between tech/social media platforms and the government to counter such incidents. The Indian government is actively seeking to collaborate with tech/social media platforms to foster a safe and trustworthy digital environment and to also ensure compliance with intermediary rules and regulations. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has used ‘extraordinary powers’ to block certain YouTube channels, X (Twitter) & Facebook accounts, allegedly used to spread harmful misinformation. The government has issued advisories regulating deepfake and misinformation, and social media platforms initiated efforts to implement algorithmic and technical improvements to counter misinformation and secure the information landscape.

Efforts by the Government and Social Media Platforms to Combat Misinformation

1. Advisory regulating AI, deepfake and misinformation

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued a modified advisory on 15th March 2024, in suppression of the advisory issued on 1st March 2024. The latest advisory specifies that the platforms should inform all users about the consequences of dealing with unlawful information on platforms, including disabling access, removing non-compliant information, suspension or termination of access or usage rights of the user to their user account and imposing punishment under applicable law. The advisory necessitates identifying synthetically created content across various formats, and instructs platforms to employ labels, unique identifiers, or metadata to ensure transparency. 

2. Rules related to content regulation

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (Updated as on 6.4.2023) have been enacted under the IT Act, 2000. These rules assign specific obligations on intermediaries as to what kind of information is to be hosted, displayed, uploaded, published, transmitted, stored or shared. The rules also specify provisions to establish a grievance redressal mechanism by platforms and remove unlawful content within stipulated time frames.

3. Counteracting misinformation during Indian elections 2024

To counter misinformation during the Indian elections the government and social media platforms made their best efforts to ensure the electoral integrity was saved from any threat of mis/disinformation. The Election Commission of India (ECI) further launched the 'Myth vs Reality Register' to combat misinformation and to ensure the integrity of the electoral process during the general elections in 2024. The ECI collaborated with Google to empower the citizenry by making it easy to find critical voting information on Google Search and YouTube. In this way, Google has supported the 2024 Indian General Election by providing high-quality information to voters and helping people navigate AI-generated content. Google connected voters to helpful information through product features that show data from trusted institutions across its portfolio. YouTube showcased election information panels, featuring content from authoritative sources.

4. YouTube and X (Twitter) new ‘Notes Feature’

• Notes Feature on YouTube: YouTube is testing an experimental feature that allows users to add notes to provide relevant, timely, and easy-to-understand context for videos. This initiative builds on previous products that display helpful information alongside videos, such as information panels and disclosure requirements when content is altered or synthetic. YouTube clarified that the pilot will be available on mobiles in the U.S. and in the English language, to start with. During this test phase, viewers, participants, and creators are invited to give feedback on the quality of the notes.
• Community Notes feature on X: Community Notes on X aims to enhance the understanding of potentially misleading posts by allowing users to add context to them. Contributors can leave notes on any post, and if enough people rate the note as helpful, it will be publicly displayed. The algorithm is open source and publicly available on GitHub, allowing anyone to audit, analyze, or suggest improvements. However, Community Notes do not represent X's viewpoint and cannot be edited or modified by their teams. A post with a Community Note will not be labelled, removed, or addressed by X unless it violates the X Rules, Terms of Service, or Privacy Policy. Failure to abide by these rules can result in removal from accessing Community Notes and/or other remediations. Users can report notes that do not comply with the rules by selecting the menu on a note and selecting ‘Report’ or using the provided form.

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations

Countering widespread online misinformation on social media platforms requires a multipronged approach that involves joint efforts from different stakeholders. Platforms should invest in state-of-the-art algorithms and technology to detect and flag suspected misleading information. They should also establish trustworthy fact-checking protocols and collaborate with expert fact-checking groups. Campaigns, seminars, and other educational materials must be encouraged by the government to increase public awareness and digital literacy about the mis/disinformation risks and impacts. Netizens should be empowered with the necessary skills and ability to discern fact and misleading information to successfully browse true information in the digital information age. The joint efforts by Government authorities, tech companies, and expert cyber security organisations are vital in promoting a secure and honest online information landscape and countering the spread of mis/disinformation. Platforms must encourage netizens/users to foster appropriate online conduct while using platforms and abiding by the terms & conditions and community guidelines of the platforms. Encouraging a culture of truth and integrity on the internet, honouring differing points of view, and confirming facts all help to create a more reliable and information-resilient environment. 

References:

1. https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Advisory%2015March%202024.pdf
2. https://blog.google/intl/en-in/company-news/outreach-initiatives/supporting-the-2024-indian-general-election/
3. https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/new-ways-to-offer-viewers-more-context/
4. https://help.x.com/en/using-x/community-notes

‍

Executive Summary:
‍

Amid the ongoing conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, a video showing a building engulfed in flames is being widely circulated on social media. In the clip, a large fire can be seen inside a building while several people appear to be running in panic. The video is being shared with the claim that Iran fired a hypersonic missile targeting a ceremony in Tel Aviv, Israel, allegedly killing several Israeli military generals and other prominent figures.

However, research by the CyberPeace found that the claim is false. The video being circulated as footage of an attack in Israel actually predates the current conflict and shows a fire that broke out during a wedding ceremony.

‍

Claim

‍

A Facebook user named “Syed Asif Raza Jafri” shared the video on March 13, 2026, claiming that an Iranian hypersonic missile had struck a grand ceremony in Tel Aviv, where several Israeli military officers, generals, soldiers, and other important personalities were present. According to the post, the attack resulted in multiple casualties.

Source:

• https://www.facebook.com/reel/902182825912364
• https://ghostarchive.org/archive/rZryr

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we began our research using the Google Lens reverse image search tool. Several key frames from the viral video were extracted and searched online.

During the search, we found the same video shared earlier on multiple foreign social media accounts. A Facebook user named “Es de Bombero” from Chile had posted the video on January 17, 2026, describing it in Spanish as footage of a fire that broke out during a wedding celebration.

• https://www.facebook.com/reel/898957402853732 

‍

‍

Our research shows that the viral video had been circulating on social media since at least January 15, 2026, well before the escalation of the current conflict. According to a report published on March 1, 2026, by BBC, the large-scale attacks on Iran by the United States and Israel began on February 28, 2026, after which Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was reported dead.

‍

Additionally, a March 12, 2026 report by Al Jazeera stated that a house near Tel Aviv in central Israel was damaged by a rocket reportedly fired by Hezbollah, which has previously carried out joint attacks in coordination with Iran.

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The viral video being shared as footage of an Iranian hypersonic missile strike in Tel Aviv is misleading. The clip is an older video of a fire that reportedly broke out during a wedding ceremony and was circulating online before the current conflict began.

While the exact location of the incident shown in the video cannot be independently verified, it is clear that the footage has no connection to the ongoing war between the United States, Israel, and Iran.

‍