#FactCheck - Manipulated Image Alleging Disrespect Towards PM Circulates Online
Executive Summary:
A manipulated image showing someone making an offensive gesture towards Prime Minister Narendra Modi is circulating on social media. However, the original photo does not display any such behavior towards the Prime Minister. The CyberPeace Research Team conducted an analysis and found that the genuine image was published in a Hindustan Times article in May 2019, where no rude gesture was visible. A comparison of the viral and authentic images clearly shows the manipulation. Moreover, The Hitavada also published the same image in 2019. Further investigation revealed that ABPLive also had the image.
Claims:
A picture showing an individual making a derogatory gesture towards Prime Minister Narendra Modi is being widely shared across social media platforms.
Fact Check:
Upon receiving the news, we immediately ran a reverse search of the image and found an article by Hindustan Times, where a similar photo was posted but there was no sign of such obscene gestures shown towards PM Modi.
ABP Live and The Hitavada also have the same image published on their website in May 2019.
Comparing both the viral photo and the photo found on official news websites, we found that almost everything resembles each other except the derogatory sign claimed in the viral image.
With this, we have found that someone took the original image, published in May 2019, and edited it with a disrespectful hand gesture, and which has recently gone viral across social media and has no connection with reality.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, a manipulated picture circulating online showing someone making a rude gesture towards Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been debunked by the Cyberpeace Research team. The viral image is just an edited version of the original image published in 2019. This demonstrates the need for all social media users to check/ verify the information and facts before sharing, to prevent the spread of fake content. Hence the viral image is fake and Misleading.
- Claim: A picture shows someone making a rude gesture towards Prime Minister Narendra Modi
- Claimed on: X, Instagram
- Fact Check: Fake & Misleading
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
A video is rapidly circulating on social media showing a man enthusiastically dancing to the Hindi song Sun Sahiba Sun. The clip is being shared with a sensational claim that it is a private video leaked from the hacked email account of FBI Director Kash Patel. In the video, a man can be seen dancing in a casual setting while people in the background cheer him on. Several users have linked the clip to an alleged cyberattack by Iran-linked hackers, attempting to connect it with ongoing international developments.
However, research by the CyberPeace found that the video has been available online since at least 2020. It also resurfaced in 2022, long before the current claims emerged. There is no connection between the video and Kash Patel or any hacking incident. Further research confirmed that the clip is not recent and has no link to any cybersecurity breach. In 2022, the same video had gone viral as a humorous post, with claims that the man was celebrating because his wife had temporarily gone to her maternal home.
Claim
On March 29, 2026, an Instagram user named ‘greyinsightsbharat’ shared the video claiming it was leaked from Patel’s hacked Gmail account. The caption read:“FBI Director Kash Patel's Gmail Hacked by Iranian Hackers; His Alleged Dancing Video Leaked.”
The research involved extracting keyframes from the video and conducting reverse image searches, which revealed that the same clip had been shared multiple times in the past with different, unrelated claims.
Fact Check
A reverse search also led to a December 2022 media report featuring the same visuals. According to that report, the video showed a man joyfully dancing to celebrate his wife’s temporary visit to her parental home.
Additionally, findings confirm that the footage has existed online since at least 2020 and has previously gone viral. The song featured in the clip is from the 1985 Bollywood film Ram Teri Ganga Maili, originally sung by legendary artist Lata Mangeshkar.
Conclusion:
The claim that the viral dance video is a leaked private clip of FBI Director Kash Patel is false and misleading. Verified findings show that the video has been available on the internet since at least 2020 and had already gone viral in 2022 in a completely different and humorous context. There is no evidence linking the clip to any recent cyberattack, email hack, or data breach involving Patel. The resurfacing of this old video with a fabricated narrative highlights how unrelated content is often repurposed to create sensational misinformation, especially during sensitive geopolitical situations. Users are advised to verify such claims through credible sources before sharing, as misleading posts like these can distort public understanding and spread confusion.
Introduction
With mobile phones at the centre of our working and personal lives, the SIM card, which was once just a plain chip that links phones with networks, has turned into a vital component of our online identity, SIM cloning has become a sneaky but powerful cyber-attack, where attackers are able to subvert multi-factor authentication (MFA), intercept sensitive messages, and empty bank accounts, frequently without the victim's immediate awareness. As threat actors are becoming more sophisticated, knowing the process, effects, and prevention of SIM cloning is essential for security professionals, telecom operators, and individuals alike.
Understanding SIM Cloning
SIM cloning is the act of making an exact copy of a victim's original SIM card. After cloning, the attacker's phone acts like the victim's, receiving calls, messages, and OTPs. This allows for a variety of cybercrimes, ranging from unauthorised financial transactions to social media account hijacking. The attacker virtually impersonates the victim, often leading to disastrous outcomes.
The cloning can be executed through various means:
● Phishing or Social Engineering: The attack compels the victim or a mobile carrier into divulging personal information or requesting a replacement SIM.
● SIM Swap Requests: Attackers use fake IDs or stolen credentials to make telecom providers port the victim's number to a new SIM.
● SS7 Protocol Exploitation: Certain sophisticated attacks target weaknesses in the Signalling System No. 7 (SS7) protocol employed by cellular networks to communicate.
● Hardware based SIM Cloning: Although uncommon, experienced attackers will clone SIMs through the use of specialized hardware and malware that steals authentication keys.
The Real-World Consequences
The harm inflicted by SIM cloning is systemic as well as personal. The victims are deprived of their phones and online accounts, realising the breach only when improper dealings or login attempts have occurred. The FBI reported over $50 million loss in 2023 from crimes associated with SIM, most of which involved cryptocurrency account and high net-worth persons.
Closer to home, Indian entrepreneurs, journalists, and fintech users have reported losing access to their numbers, only to have their WhatsApp, UPI, and banking apps taken over. In a few instances, the attackers even contacted contacts, posing as the victim to scam others.
Why the Threat Is Growing
Dependence on SMS-based OTPs is still a core vulnerability. Even as there are attempts to move towards app-based two-factor authentication (2FA), most banking, government, and e-commerce websites continue to employ SMS as their main authentication method. This reliance provides an entry point for attackers who can replicate a SIM and obtain OTPs without detection.
Vulnerabilities in telecom infrastructure are also a part of the issue. Insider attacks at telecom operators, where malicious employees handle fraud SIM swap requests, also keep cropping up. On top of that, most users are not even aware of what exactly SIM cloning is or how to identify it, leaving attackers with a head start.
Very often, the victims are only aware that their SIM has been cloned when they lose mobile service or notice unusual activity on their accounts. Red flags include loss of signal, failure to send or receive messages, and inability to receive OTPs. Alerts on password changes or unusual login attempts must never be taken lightly, particularly if this is coupled with loss of mobile service.
How Users Can Protect Themselves
● Use A Strong SIM Pin: This protects your SIM from access by unauthorized users should your phone be lost or stolen.
● Secure Personal Information: Don't post sensitive personal information online that can have a place in social engineering.
● Notify your Carrier of Suspicious Activity: If your phone suddenly has lost service or is behaving strangely, contact your mobile operator immediately.
● Register for Telecom Alerts: Many providers offer alerts to SIM swap or porting requests that are useful to preliminarily detect a possible takeover.
● Verify SIM card status using Sanchar Saathi: Visit [https://sancharsaathi.gov.in](https://sancharsaathi.gov.in) to check how many mobile numbers are issued using your ID. This government portal allows you to identify unauthorized or unknown SIM cards, helping prevent SIM swapping fraud. You can also request to block suspicious numbers linked to your identity.
Conclusion
SIM cloning is not a retrograde nod to vintage cybercrime; it's an effective method of exploitation, especially where there's a strong presence of SMS-based authentication. The attack vector is simple, but the damage it causes can be profound, both financial and reputational. With telecommunication networks forming the backbone of digital identity, users, regulators, and telecom service providers have to move in tandem. For the users, awareness is the best protection. For Telecoms, security must be a baseline requirement, not a value-add option. It's time to redefine mobile security, before your identity is in anyone else's hands.
References
● https://www.trai.gov.in/faqcategory/mobile-number-portability
● https://www.cert-in.org.in/PDF/Digital_Threat_Report_2024.pdf
● https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2022/PSA220208/
● https://www.hdfcbank.com/personal/useful-links/security/beware-of-fraud/sim-swap
● https://security-gen.com/SecurityGen-Article-Cloning-SimCard.pdf
● https://www.p1sec.com/blog/understanding-ss7-attacks-vulnerabilities-impacts-and-protection-measures
Introduction
Freedom of speech and expression is fundamental to democracy and is constitutionally entrenched in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The explosion of online spaces, brought about by the digital age, in the form of social media, blogs, and messaging apps, has reinterpreted how information is authored, disseminated, and consumed. This digital revolution has galvanised individuals to engage further inclusively in public debate, but has also fanatically magnified the risks of misinformation, hate speech, and threats to public order. Against this background, the judiciary is increasingly called upon to determine the limits of free speech, primarily where state regulation seeks to infringe upon constitutional protection.
Constitutional and Statutory Framework related to Freedom of Speech
The judiciary plays an integral role in balancing the fundamental right of freedom of speech with the regulation of online content, especially during the fast-paced evolution of the digital world. In India, with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of speech, the courts bear the critical responsibility of protecting this liberty while recognising the State's legitimate interests in restricting harmful or unlawful content on a digital scale. This adjudicatory dilemma is even trickier because the said right has been held by the Supreme Court not to be an absolute one and is subject to "reasonable restrictions" as in Article 19(2), which recognises restrictions in the interest of sovereignty, security, public order, decency, and morality. Freedom of speech, being the cornerstone of democracy in India, does have an umbrella of reasonable restrictions under which the state can regulate any form of speech that infringes upon other equally compelling societal interests. However, with the coming of the internet and other digital communication arrangements, there was a need to develop new statutory instruments, i.e., Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and Rules made thereunder, including Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules, 2021. These enactments attempt to regulate digital content, confronting issues such as hate speech, misinformation, and content that threatens public order. The judiciary's mandate is to interpret the enactments within the constitutional precincts, thus ensuring that the arbitrariness of State action is not aggravated or that the regulation is not overbroad. Judicial Landmark Decisions Affirming Balance The judiciary has played a front-ranking role in elaborating a jurisprudence protecting free speech in delineating legitimate regulation thereof. The Supreme Court judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015, is seminal. Section 66A of the IT Act was struck down as it was vague and overly broad, causing a chilling effect on online speech. The Court has emphasised that any limitation on speech must be precise and fall strictly within the parameters laid down in Article 19(2). While the Court recognises that harmful online content needs to be addressed, the remedy must not encroach upon free political debate, satire, and criticism vital for democracy.
Following this, the Anuradha Bhasin case clarified the convergence of free speech and online access. The court held that the right to free speech had a vital medium in the form of the internet and that it would have to be an inevitable, proportionate shutdown, and transparent for challenge before the judiciary for any shutdown of the internet. This reaffirmed that restrictions on online speech must be rigorously tested.
Subsequent cases involve limitations on the 2021 IT Rules, whereby such government bodies can demand that “fake” or “misleading” material be taken off the internet. Courts move with circumspection, recognising the government's interest in fighting bogus information but remaining vigilant against over-regulation that can be code for pre-emptive censorship and threatening healthy discourses.
The virtual world raises particular and deeper questions: the viral nature of online speech multiplies its impact, distributing both democratic ideas and abusive material instantaneously. The courts recognise this twinning. While pressurising the legislature and executive to formulate clearer, more precise rules, courts simultaneously act as constitutional Guardians, avoiding breaches of the right with executive excess or vague laws. There is a strain between judicial activism, which promotes constitutional rights aggressively, and the fear of judicial paternalism, courts overreaching into policy arenas. But there is a need for vigilance by the judiciary due to the rapidly changing nature of digital technologies and threats to the freedoms of democracy. The judiciary continues to give contours to free speech and online regulation. There are enforcement issues, such as ongoing abuse of struck-down provisions, such as Section 66A, that the court counters with reaffirmation of constitutional directives. The evolving jurisprudence balances on thin stilts, upholding the democratic spirit of India by securing speech on online spaces and sanctioning reasonable, transparent moderation of harmful speech.
Conclusion
The Indian judiciary's leadership in balancing online content regulation with the freedom of speech is central and refined. The courts continually emphasise that speech on the digital medium is highly constitutionally protected and that restrictions must be legally valid, specific, essential, and proportionate. By classical decisions and constant review of new regulating actions, courts safeguard democratic participation in the digital public domain from unmeritorious censorship. Concurrently, the courts recognize the responsibility of the state in regulating digital ills such as mis recipe and hate speech, demanding parameters that uphold constitutional freedoms and the due process. The balancing act of the judiciary continues to be fundamental in defining India's digital democracy so that free speech can thrive even as the state upholds public order and human dignity in the digital communication age.
