#FactCheck - Deepfake Video Falsely Links Shah Rukh Khan to Rajpal Yadav Case

Introduction

Summer vacations have always been one of the most anticipated times in a child’s life. In earlier times, it was something entirely different. The season was filled with outdoor games, muddy hands, mango-stained mouths, and stories shared with cousins under the stars. Children lived in the moment, playing in parks, riding bicycles, and inventing new adventures without a screen in sight. Today, those same summer days are shaped by glowing devices, virtual games, and hours spent online. While technology brings learning and entertainment, it also invites risks that parents cannot ignore. The Cyber Mom Toolkit is here to help you navigate this shift, offering simple and thoughtful ways to keep your children safe, balanced, and joyful during these screen filled holidays.
‍

The Hidden Cyber Risks of Summer Break

With increased leisure time and less supervision, children are likely to venture into unknown reaches of the internet. I4C reports indicate that child-related cases, such as cyberbullying, sextortion, and viewing offensive content, surge during school vacations. Gaming applications, social networking applications, and YouTube can serve as entry points for cyber predators and spammers. That's why it is important that parents, particularly mothers know what digital spaces their children live in and how to intervene appropriately.

‍
Your Action Plan for Being a Cyber Smart Mom

‍

Moms Need to Get Digitally Engaged 

You do not need to be a tech expert to become a cyber smart mom. With just a few simple digital skills, you can start protecting your child online with confidence and ease.

1. Know the Platforms Your Children Use

Spend some time investigating apps such as Instagram, Snapchat, Discord, YouTube, or computer games like Roblox and Minecraft. Familiarise yourself with the type of content, chat options, and privacy loopholes they may have.

2. Install Parental Controls

Make use of native features on devices (Android, iOS, Windows) to limit screen time, block mature content, and track downloads. Applications such as Google Family Link and Apple Screen Time enable parents to control apps and web browsing. 

3. Develop a Family Cyber Agreement

• Establish common rules such as:
• No devices in bedrooms past 9 p.m.
• Add only safe connections on social media.
• Don't open suspicious messages or click on mysterious links.
• Always tell your mom if something makes you feel uncomfortable online.

‍

‍Talk Openly and Often

Kids tend to hide things online because they don't want to get punished or embarrassed. Trust is built better than monitoring. Here's how:

• Have non-judgmental chats about what they do online.
• Use news reports or real-life cases as conversation starters: "Did you hear about that YouTuber's hacked account?
• Encourage them to question things if they're confused or frightened.
• Honour their online life as a legitimate aspect of their lives.

‍

Look for the Signs of Online Trouble

Stay alert to subtle changes in your child’s behavior, as they can be early signs of trouble in their online world.

• Sudden secrecy or aggression when questioned about online activity.
• Overuse of screens, particularly in the evening.
• Deterioration in school work or interest in leisure activities.
• Mood swings, anxiety, or withdrawn behaviour.

If you notice these, speak to your child calmly. You can also report serious matters such as cyberbullying or blackmail on the Cybercrime Helpline 1930 or visit https://cybercrime.gov.in

‍

Support Healthy Digital Behaviours

Teach your kids to be good netizens by leading them to:

• Reflect Before Posting: No address, school name, or family information should ever appear in public posts.
• Set Strong Passwords: Passwords must be long, complicated, and not disclosed to friends, even best friends.
• Enable Privacy Settings: Keep social media accounts privately. Disable location sharing. Restrict comments and messages from others.
• Vigilance: Encourage them to spot fake news, scams, and manipulative ads. Critical thinking is the ultimate defence.

Stay alert to subtle changes in your child’s behavior, as they can be early signs of trouble in their online world.

‍

Where to Learn More and Get Support as a Cyber Mom

Cyber moms looking to deepen their understanding of online safety can explore a range of helpful resources offered by CyberPeace. Our blog features easy-to-understand articles on current cyber threats, safety tips, and parenting guidance for the digital age. You can also follow our social media pages for regular updates, quick tips, and awareness campaigns designed especially for families. If you ever feel concerned or need help, the CyberPeace Helpline is available to offer support and guidance. (+91 9570000066 or write to us at helpline@cyberpeace.net). For those who want to get more involved, joining the CyberPeace Corps allows you to become part of a larger community working to promote digital safety and cyber awareness across the country.

‍

Empowering Mothers Empowers Society

We at CyberPeace feel that every mother, irrespective of her background and technological expertise, has the potential to be a Cyber Mom. The intention is not to control the child but to mentor towards safer decisions, identify issues early, and prepare them for a lifetime of online responsibility. Mothers are empowered when they know. And children are safe when they are protected.

‍

Conclusion

The web isn't disappearing, and neither are its dangers. But when mothers are digital role models, they can make summer screen time a season of wise decisions. This summer, become a Cyber Mom: someone who learns, leads, and listens. Whether it's installing a parental control app, discussing openly about cyberbullying, or just asking your child, "What did you discover online today? " that engagement can make a difference. This summer break, help your child become digitally equipped with the skills and knowledge they need to navigate the online world safely and confidently.

Cyber safety starts at home, and there's no better point of departure than being alongside your child, rather than behind them.

‍

References

• https://cybercrime.gov.in
• https://support.apple.com/en-in/HT208982
• https://beinternetawesome.withgoogle.com
• https://www.cyberpeace.org
• https://ncpcr.gov.in

‍

‍

A few of us were sitting together, talking shop - which, for moms, inevitably circles back to children, their health and education. Mothers of teenagers were concerned that their children seemed to spend an excessive amount of time online and had significantly reduced verbal communication at home. 

Reena shared that she was struggling to understand her two boys, who had suddenly transformed from talkative, lively children into quiet, withdrawn teenagers. 

Naaz nodded. “My daughter is glued to her device. I just can’t get her off it! What do I do, girls? Any suggestions?”

Mou sighed, “And what about the rising scams? I keep warning my kids about online threats, but I’m not sure I’m doing enough.”

Not just scams, those come later. What worries me more are the videos and photos of unsuspecting children being edited and misused on digital platforms,” added Reena.

The Digital Parenting Dilemma

For parents, it’s a constant challenge—allowing children internet access means exposing them to potential risks while restricting it invites criticism for being overly strict.

‘What do I do?’ is a question that troubles many parents, as they know how addictive phones and gaming devices can be. (Fun fact: Even parents sometimes struggle to resist endlessly scrolling through social media!)

‘What should I tell them, and when?’ This becomes a pressing concern when parents hear about cyberbullying, online grooming, or even cyberabduction.

‘How do I ensure they stay cybersafe?’ This remains an ongoing worry, as children grow and their online activities evolve.

Whether it’s a single-child, dual-income household, a two-child, single-income family, or any other combination, parents have their hands full managing work, chores, and home life. Sometimes, children have to be left alone—with grandparents, caregivers, or even by themselves for a few hours—making it difficult to monitor their digital lives. While smartphones help parents stay connected and track their child’s location, they can also expose children to risks if not used responsibly.

Breaking It Down

Start cybersafety discussions early and tailor them to your child’s age.

For simplicity, let’s categorize learning into five key age groups:

• 0 – 2 years
• 3 – 7 years
• 8 – 12 years
• 13 – 16 years
• 16 – 19 years

Let’s explore the key safety messages for each stage.

Reminder:

‍

Children will always test boundaries and may resist rules. The key is to lead by example—practice cybersafety as a family.

0 – 2 Years: Newborns & Infants

Pediatricians recommend avoiding screen exposure for children under two years old. If you occasionally allow screen time (for example, while changing them), keep it to a minimum. Children are easily distracted—use this to your advantage.

What can you do?

• Avoid watching TV or using mobile devices in front of them.
• Keep activity books, empty boxes, pots, and ladles handy to engage them.

‍

3 – 7 Years: Toddlers & Preschoolers

‍

Cybersafety education should ideally begin when a child starts engaging with screens. At this stage, parents have complete control over what their child watches and for how long.

What can you do?

• Keep screen time limited and fully supervised.
• Introduce basic cybersecurity concepts, such as stranger danger and good picture vs. bad picture.‍
• Encourage offline activities—educational toys, books, and games.
• Restrict your own screen time when your child is awake to set a good example.
• Set up parental controls and create child-specific accounts on devices.Secure all devices with comprehensive security software.

8 – 12 Years: Primary & Preteens

Cyber-discipline should start now. Strengthen rules, set clear boundaries, and establish consequences for rule violations.

What can you do?

• Increase screen time gradually to accommodate studies, communication, and entertainment.
• Teach them about privacy and the dangers of oversharing personal information.
• Continue stranger-danger education, including safe/unsafe websites and apps.
• Emphasize reviewing T&Cs before downloading apps.Introduce concepts like scams, phishing, deepfakes, and virus attacks using real-life examples.
• Keep banking and credit card credentials private—children may unintentionally share sensitive information.

Cyber Safety Mantras:

• STOP. THINK. ACT.
• Do Not Trust Blindly Online.‍‍

13 – 16 Years: The Teenage Phase

Teenagers are likely to resist rules and demand independence, but if cybersecurity has been a part of their upbringing, they will tolerate parental oversight.

What can you do?

• Continue parental controls but allow greater access to previously restricted content.
• Encourage open conversations about digital safety and online threats.
• Respect their need for privacy but remain involved as a silent observer.
• Discuss cyberbullying, harassment, and online reputation management.
• Keep phones out of bedrooms at night and maintain device-free zones during family time.
• Address online relationships and risks like dating scams, sextortion, and trafficking.

16 – 19 Years: The Transition to Adulthood

By this stage, children have developed a sense of responsibility and maturity. It’s time to gradually loosen control while reinforcing good digital habits.

What can you do?

• Monitor their online presence without being intrusive.Maintain open discussions—teens still value parental advice.
• Stay updated on digital trends so you can offer relevant guidance.
• Encourage digital balance by planning device-free family outings.

Final Thoughts

As a parent, your role is not just to set rules but to empower your child to navigate the digital world safely. Lead by example, encourage responsible usage, and create an environment where your child feels comfortable discussing online challenges with you.

Wishing you a safe and successful digital parenting journey!

‍

Introduction
‍

In June 2026, the Government of India temporarily restricted access to Telegram amid concerns that the platform had been used to facilitate examination related malpractice, including the alleged circulation of leaked question papers during the NEET UG re examination. The move reignited a familiar debate about the responsibility of digital platforms for unlawful activities carried out through them.

Critics of such restrictions raise a fundamental question: if a traffic accident occurs on a road, do we shut down the road? If theft takes place inside a shopping mall, do we close the entire mall? By the same logic, is it reasonable to block a communication platform because some individuals misuse it? These questions lie at the heart of a broader conflict between state interests in maintaining public order and the protection of digital rights, privacy, and freedom of communication in an increasingly interconnected world.

The controversy surrounding Telegram therefore extends beyond a single examination or messaging application. It raises a deeper and more pressing question: who should bear responsibility for illegal acts committed through encrypted digital platforms, and where should the law draw the line between effective enforcement and the preservation of fundamental digital freedoms?

Beyond mere communication for millions of students in India, Telegram is a classroom in the digital sense, an archive for their notes, practice papers, lecture recordings, and community groups that hundreds of millions of candidates refer to every single day. Therefore, why on a routine day in June 2026 did the messaging app top every other channel? Temporary internet restriction on the platform had become necessary to stop examination-related malpractice like leakage of question papers and was temporarily suspended, with reports suggesting that this move by the government was on the occasion of the NEET-UG re-examination.

This ban once again brings up a bigger question that cannot be contained within one particular examination. When has it become okay to hold a communication platform responsible and accountable for illegal acts committed over it? Or are the perpetrators solely to blame, and the service can be prohibited? Ultimately, where is the line drawn between public interest, law enforcement, and digital rights and privacy? 

‍

End-to-End Encryption: Architecture and Benefits
‍

At the heart of these discussions of Telegram and other apps lies a technology referred to as "end-to-end encryption" or "E2EE." Quite literally, it means a message is locked with cryptography on the sender's device and can only be unlocked by the intended recipient. Not even the tech platform running the communication app can decipher it for everyone else; it just looks like random gibberish.

‍

The Process
‍

This kind of modern communication relies on public key cryptography. Each person has a public key they can share with anyone and a private key that stays only on their devices. When they send you a message, it is scrambled with crypto that can be unlocked by only your private key. WhatsApp and Signal, for example, use the Signal Protocol, which features "perfect forward secrecy" and is designed to protect communications from ever being unlocked even if one key is compromised. Telegram's approach is a bit unique. By default, Telegram messages aren't encrypted with end-to-end crypto; this only comes via an optional feature called "Secret Chats," a key difference in the regulatory debate.

‍

The Dark Side: Crime, Misuse, and the Moderation Dilemma

‍

The very features that make end-to-end messaging popular among everyday people are privacy, speed, anonymity, and mass reach which also make end-to-end messaging popular among criminals. That, unfortunately, is the catch for policymakers globally: The technology designed to protect innocent users is also the technology that facilitates criminal activity.

‍

3.1 Criminal Abuse

Telegram, in particular, has frequently come under fire for its role in hosting a spectrum of criminal activities, most notably in the recent controversy in India regarding NEET-UG 2026 examination papers where channels allegedly advertised leaked question papers for enormous sums, convincing desperate candidates. In these instances, messages could be altered or deleted using Telegram’s message editing feature, fabricating evidence of prior leaks. However, this extends to illicit marketplaces, drug trafficking, financial fraud, money laundering, and distributing other prohibited content. Telegram's usage in disseminating extremist propaganda and aiding criminal organizations is also frequently cited, leading to bans or restrictions in countries ranging from Brazil to Nepal to Somalia to Vietnam.

‍

3.2 The Moderation Dilemma

But the difficulty is not just with misuse; it’s also about effective moderation. Moderation, however, requires content transparency. Strong encryption is built to obscure just that. Many end-to-end messaging services like Signal and WhatsApp emphasize that even if they wanted to, they would have been able to decipher the content of a user’s message due to their architecture. Telegram has been in scrutiny for years due to its limited cooperation with law enforcement agencies because its default chats are not completely end-to-end encrypted, though there has been an attempt by Pavel Durov, the platform’s founder, to increase cooperation following his 2024 arrest in France.

This gives policymakers the following challenge: How can governments require increased access to fight crime without forcing tech companies to weaken security for everyone? As cryptographers point out, a specific "backdoor" intended to allow access to law enforcement officials can be easily exploited by hackers, foreign governments, and any other actor with nefarious intent.

‍

Comparison of Regulatory Approaches Worldwide

‍

4.1 Authoritarian Countries' Responses

‍

China, for instance, has had the app blocked as part of its strategy to control access to the internet since 2015, and Iran did so in 2018 when the app was used to help organize protests against the government. An infamous Russian bid to block Telegram in 2018 turned into a cautionary story. Trying to censor the service disrupted the IPs of millions of computers, including significant services like those run by Amazon and Google. The move was met by a surge of users turning to VPNs to get access. It’s an expensive, disruptive, and incomplete form of censorship.

‍

4.2 Democratic Countries' Approaches

‍

Democratic jurisdictions generally prefer targeted interventions. Telegram was suspended in Brazil in 2022 and 2023, though again, only in response to a judge’s order in relation to particular investigations, and was lifted when it came into compliance. The EU’s approach has been to build on an established approach of regulation by use of a broader legislative framework, including the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, aimed at platform liability rather than outlawing encryption outright.

 Meanwhile, the proposed scanning of encrypted communications has run into strong judicial headwinds, with the European courts stressing the danger of backdoors to privacy.

‍

4.3 The United Kingdom Approach

‍

The UK offers a middle way. With its Investigatory Powers Act, the government can oblige tech companies to collaborate in legitimate investigations. But this came to a head earlier this year with the case of Apple and the government's attempts to force it to unlock encrypted iCloud backups. Apple not only refused to reduce its encryption but also decided instead to disable some of its features for British users. This has created a problem for democracies across the world: how to balance access for investigators against the need to maintain the security that makes our systems safer.

‍

Judicial and Legislative Perspectives: India and Beyond

‍

In the Indian context, to have a perspective about the legal frameworks concerning content moderation, let’s explore some of the foundational decisions from the Supreme Court. Three decisions have laid the building block for digital rights laws: the first being Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), where Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, was upheld, but only by laying rigorous conditions on the review process and chance of challenging the said decision. Another important decision in this sphere is Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) which stated that the right to privacy is fundamental in nature under Article 21 of the Constitution and stipulated the constitutional requirements of legality, legitimacy, and proportionality against the state’s interventions in fundamental rights. The most recent important case law to consider, in this context, would be Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) which set certain limitations, such as any internet shut-downs or orders have to be temporary, proportional, and have scope for appeal. Further, the Supreme Court demanded transparency around any and all orders of blocking.

These principles of proportionality and legal limitations are highly pertinent to the Telegram issue, especially since Section 69A confers powers to block information in case of concerns about public order, national security, etc., but activists often cite this power to target specific content rather than entire platforms like Telegram. The ban on Telegram in June 2026 and disabling of message editing will force authorities to justify not only their statutory authority but also the need for proportionate means.

These aspects are amplified by IT Rules, 2021, which mandate that some instant messaging platforms may require identification of the ‘first originator’ of messages, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, to protect digital personal data by ensuring it does not undermine national security exceptions to this end. 

Moreover, the use of encryption to ensure secure and private communications is becoming an important point of legal discourse globally. Recently, the European Court of Human Rights in Podchasov v. Russia (2024) held that mandating decryption on devices as a tool of investigative power constituted a disproportionate interference with an individual's right to privacy implying that while states may indeed have authority to regulate communication and digital services, any such measures limiting the scope of encryption will have to meet strict requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality to be legally justifiable.

‍

Constitutional Validity of the Ban

‍

The government's case for a constitutional ban on Telegram rests upon its ability to satisfy the proportionality framework established by Puttaswamy and Anuradha Bhasin.

1. Legitimate aim:  The state's strong suit. This is the government's best argument. Protection of the integrity of NEET-UG, a high-stakes test with close to 2.4 million students, can indeed be a legitimate state objective. Given that there is evidence of channels that allegedly were involved in selling leaked question papers, the action is presumably justifiable under section 69A for preventing the incitement or occurrence of public disorder or preventing cognizable offenses.
2. Necessity: The National Testing Agency (NTA) itself admitted that localized removal of suspicious accounts on Telegram had already mitigated the risks, while Telegram insisted that it had independently taken down numerous channels. The fact that the block affected more than 150 million users in India, where the medium is widely used for personal communication and is also utilized on other platforms like WhatsApp, Discord, and Instagram to a similar or higher extent, raises the responsibility to justify a strict platform-wide ban. Moreover, there is a significant legal question regarding the state’s authority under section 69A to direct Telegram to disable its message-editing capability.
3. Proportionality and process: The block, even though it was temporary and intended to ensure fairness in the examination system, severely undermined legitimate uses of the platform by students who used it to share educational materials and organize study groups. Moreover, the opaqueness around the section 69A order is itself hard to reconcile with the transparency requirements set out in Anuradha Bhasin. 

Thus, while the objectives of preventing exam fraud may be legitimate, the necessity and proportionality of single platform-wide bans remain highly suspect under Indian constitutional law.

‍

Policy Recommendations and the Path Forward

‍

The Telegram controversy points to the need for a better balancing act in platform governance in India. Firstly, instead of blanket platform shutdowns, action should target specific channels, bots, or URLs, as may be the case. Secondly, any attempt to dictate changes to features, such as disabling message editing, should be based on specific statutory provisions, not an expansive reading of Section 69A. Furthermore, there is a dire need for increased transparency; blocking orders must state the justification for the order, what is being blocked, and for how long, as far as possible. In the long run, stricter cross-border cooperation via streamlined MLATs, or through the appointment of local legal representatives by foreign platforms, would facilitate easier enforcement. Ultimately, all major blocking decisions must be accompanied by proportionality assessments. Lastly, India must resist pressure to provide access to encryption backdoors; while this might ease investigative burdens, doing so would severely jeopardise the cybersecurity of India, its businesses, and citizens.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The Telegram ban is an example of the tricky equilibrium between protection of public interest and protection of digital liberties in our hyper-connected world. While the intent to counter exam fraud is justifiable, a blanket ban on any platform has much broader implications on questions of necessity, proportionality and transparency. India has a well-developed constitutional and legal framework to deal with this issue already, and the challenge will be to see if those powers are used appropriately.

‍

References

‍

Cases:

‍

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 — Supreme Court of India
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 — Supreme Court of India (Nine-Judge Bench)
• Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637 — Supreme Court of India
• Podchasov v. Russia, European Court of Human Rights (Application No. 33696/19, February 2024)
• Apple Inc. v. United States (In re Search of an Apple iPhone, C.D. Cal. 2016)
• Telegram Messenger Inc. v. Union of India & Anr., Delhi High Court (June 2026) — Sub judice

‍

Legislation & Rules:

‍

• Information Technology Act, 2000 (India) — Sections 69A, 79
• IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access to Information by Public) Rules, 2009
• IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (India) & DPDP Rules, 2025
• EU Digital Services Act, 2022 (Regulation 2022/2065)
• EU Digital Markets Act, 2022 (Regulation 2022/1925)
• EU Child Sexual Abuse Regulation (CSAR) Proposal — In Trilogue, June 2026
• UK Investigatory Powers Act, 2016

‍

Policy Sources:

‍

• Internet Freedom Foundation, Statement on Telegram Block, 16 June 2026
•  European Commission, ProtectEU Security Strategy, June 2025
•  MeitY Section 69A Blocking Order re: Telegram (June 2026)
•  NTA Press Release on NEET-UG 2026 Re-Examination, 16 June 2026

‍