#FactCheck - Viral Image of AIMIM President Asaduddin Owaisi Holding Lord Rama Portrait Proven Fake

Introduction

In an era expounded by rapid communications and live coverage of global affairs, users often encounter misinformation continuously, and it has emerged as a huge challenge. Misinformation is false or inaccurate information, believed to be true, and shared without any intention to deceive. On the other hand, disinformation refers to false information that is intended to mislead, especially with set propaganda. It steadily affects all aspects of life and can even lead to a profound impact on geopolitics, international relations, wars, etc. When modern media announces “breaking news,” it captures attention and keeps viewers engaged. In the rush for television rating points, information may be circulated without proper fact-checking. This urgency can result in the spread of unverified claims and the elevation of irrelevant details, while truly important issues are overlooked. Such practices can distort public understanding and impact strategic political decisions.

Misinformation and Fake News in Recent History

The phenomenon of misinformation is not limited to isolated incidents but has become a recurring feature of political events around the globe. This business has increasingly become visible in recent political history, where it has not only sensationalised the general public but also affected international relations and democratic outcomes. For example, during Slovakia’s elections in 2023, the country experienced a major surge of online misinformation. Over 365,000 misleading posts were posted on social media platforms, majorly influencing public opinion and leading to challenges for voters. A lot of this content was amplified by political leaders. The media's rush to deliver content sometimes makes it easier for false narratives to dominate the public sphere, shaping voter opinions and undermining informed political discourse.

Current Geopolitical Interference by Misinformation

In the recent Hamas-Israel conflict, manipulated images and unverified reports complicated diplomacy. Such campaigns distort facts, complicate humanitarian responses, and escalate conflicts. This growing trend shows how misinformation now acts as a weapon of war, exploiting media urgency and undermining international stability.

Indo–Pak Conflict Exaggeration

The India-Pakistan conflict is a long-dragged and complex issue in South Asia. It has been continuously dragged from traditional to contemporary media. But in recent tensions and war situations media raised serious concerns about misinformation. Live media coverage can sometimes mislead the public with speculative information. The live coverage continuously addressed it as breaking news and escalated excitement and fear, distorting the reality on the ground. Moreover, the real-time reporting of sensitive military activities like mock drills, blackouts, troop movements, air strikes, etc., interfered with strategic operations. Such reporting may lead to obstructing decision-making processes and placing operational missions at risk. Later Defence Ministry called it out in one of their X posts. Such media-driven exaggeration causes mass hysteria, and eventually, emotional and patriotic sentiments are evoked. 

Legal and Political Recommendations 

The intersection of media urgency and national security may have serious geopolitical repercussions if not managed with legal and ethical restrictions. International Frameworks like UNESCO‘s Guidelines for regulating Digital Platforms, 2023, and the Digital Services Act, 2022, regulate and govern digital platforms.

Despite the existence of international and national guidelines, there remains an urgent need to strengthen cyber laws by imposing strict penalties and compensation mechanisms for the dissemination of unverified information. Media outlets must also refrain from indiscriminately labelling every report as “breaking news.” Since the modern media deals in digital data, the protection of strategic state movements should be regulated with checks and balances. 

Ethical considerations should be maintained during the publication or streaming of any information. Media should have self-regulations to fact-check and publish only authorised and double-verified information. 

Given the borderless nature of the internet and the rapid, global spread of misinformation, international cooperation is imperative. Addressing the challenges posed by cross-border mis/disinformation requires a shared understanding and coordinated response among states at the global level.

References

• https://pam.int/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/EN-Background-paper-on-disinformation-and-fake-news-Jan-2024.pdf
• https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3172349
• https://www.unesco.org/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/2023/04/draft2_guidelines_for_regulating_digital_platforms_en.pdf
• https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act_en

‍

Introduction

In an era where digitalization is transforming every facet of life, ensuring that personal data is protected becomes crucial. The enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) is a significant step that has been taken by the Indian Parliament which sets forth a comprehensive framework for Digital Personal Data. The Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 has recently been released for public consultation to supplement the Act and ensure its smooth implementation once finalised. Though noting certain positive aspects, there is still room for addressing certain gaps and multiple aspects under the draft rules that require attention. The DPDP Act, 2023 recognises the individual’s right to protect their personal data providing control over the processing of personal data for lawful purposes. This Act applies to data which is available in digital form as well as data which is not in digital form but is digitalised subsequently. While the Act is intended to offer wide control to the individuals (Data Principal) over their personal information, its impact on vulnerable groups such as ‘Persons with Disabilities’ requires closer scrutiny. 

Person with Disabilities as data principal

The term ‘data principal’ has been defined under the DPDP Act under Section 2(j) as a person to whom the personal data is related to, which also includes a person with a disability. A lawful guardian acting on behalf of such person with disability has also been included under the ambit of this definition of Data Principal. As a result, a lawful guardian acting on behalf of a person with disability will have the same rights and responsibilities as a data principal under the Act. 

• Section 9 of the DPDP Act, 2023 states that before processing the personal data of a person with a disability who has a lawful guardian, the data fiduciary must obtain verifiable consent from that guardian, ensuring proper protection of the person with disability's data privacy.
• The data principal has the right to access information about personal data under Section 11 which is being processed by the data fiduciary.
• Section 12 provides the right to correction and erasure of personal data by making a request in a manner prescribed by the data fiduciary. 
• A right to grievance redressal must be provided to the data principal in respect of any act or omission of performance of obligations by the data fiduciary or the consent manager. 
• Under Section 14, the data principal has the right to nominate any other person to exercise the rights provided under the Act in case of death or incapacity. 

Provision of consent and its implication

The three key components of Consent that can be identified under the DPDP Act, are:

• Explicit and Informed Consent: Consent given for the processing of data by the data principal or a lawful guardian in case of persons with disabilities must be clear, free and informed as per section 6 of the Act. The data fiduciary must specify the itemised description of the personal data required along with the specified purpose and description of the goods or services that would be provided by such processing of data. (Rule 3 under Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules)

• Verifiable Consent: Section 9 of the DPDP Act provides that the data fiduciary needs to obtain verifiable consent of the lawful guardian before processing any personal data of such a person with a disability.  Rule 10 of the Draft Rules obligates the data fiduciary to adopt measures to ensure that the consent given by the lawful guardian is verifiable before the is processed. 
• Withdrawal of Consent: Data principal or such lawful guardian has the option to withdraw consent for the processing of data at any point by making a request to the data fiduciary.   

Although the Act includes certain provisions that focus on the inclusivity of persons with disability, the interpretation of such sections says otherwise. 

Concerns related to provisions for Persons with Disabilities under the DPDP Act:

• Lack of definition of ‘person with disabilities’: The DPDP Act or the Draft Rules does not define the term ‘persons with disabilities’. This will create confusion as to which categories of disability are included and up to what percentage.  The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 clearly defines ‘person with benchmark disability’, ‘person with disability’ and ‘person with disability having high support needs’. This categorisation is essential to determine up to what extent a person with disability needs a lawful guardian which is missing under the DPDP Act.   
• Lack of autonomy: Though the definition of data principal includes persons with disabilities however the decision-making authority has been given to the lawful guardian of such individuals. The section creates ambiguity for people who have a lower percentage of disability and are capable of making their own decisions and have no autonomy in making decisions related to the processing of their personal data because of the lack of clarity in the definition of ‘persons with disabilities’. 
• Safeguards for abuse of power by lawful guardian: The lawful guardian once verified by the data fiduciary can make decisions for the persons with disabilities. This raises concerns regarding the potential abuse of power by lawful guardians in relation to the handling of personal data. The DPDP Act does not provide any specific protection against such abuse.
• Difficulty in verification of consent: The consent obtained by the Data Fiduciary must be verified. The process that will be adopted for verification is at the discretion of the data fiduciary according to Rule 10 of the Draft Data Protection Rules. The authenticity of consent is difficult to determine as it is a complex process which lacks a standard format. Also, with the technological advancements, it would be challenging to identify whether the information given to verify the consent is actually true. 

CyberPeace Recommendations

The DPDP Act, 2023 is a major step towards making the data protection framework more comprehensive, however, the provisions related to persons with disabilities and powers given to lawful guardians acting on their behalf still need certain clarity and refinement within the DPDP Act framework. 

• Consonance of DPDP with Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016: The RPWD and DPDP Act should supplement each other and can be used to clear the existing ambiguities. Such as the definition of ‘persons with disabilities’ under the RPWD Act can be used in the context of the DPDP Act, 2023. 
• Also, there must be certain mechanisms and safeguards within the Act to prevent abuse of power by the lawful guardian. The affected individual in case of suspected abuse of power should have an option to file a complaint with the Data Protection Board and the Board can further take necessary actions to determine whether there is abuse of power or not. 
• Regulatory oversight and additional safeguards are required to ensure that consent is obtained in a manner that respects the rights of all individuals, including those with disabilities. 

References:

• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf
• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/259889.pdf 
• https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15939/1/the_rights_of_persons_with_disabilities_act%2C_2016.pdf 
• https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/consent-disability-rights-and-data-protection-3143441
• https://www.pacta.in/digital-data-protection-consent-protocols-for-disability.pdf
• https://www.snrlaw.in/indias-new-data-protection-regime-tracking-updates-and-preparing-for-compliance/ 

‍

Executive Summary
‍

A picture is rapidly going viral on social media, showing Indian cricketer Virat Kohli and actor Anushka Sharma having breakfast together. Users are sharing this photo, presenting it as a "candid" (real) moment. Research by the CyberPeace Research Wing revealed that the photo of Virat Kohli and Anushka Sharma having breakfast is completely fake. This image does not depict a real moment, but has been created using Artificial Intelligence (AI).

‍

Claim
‍

A picture is rapidly going viral on social media, showing Indian cricketer Virat Kohli and actor Anushka Sharma having breakfast together. Users are sharing this photo, presenting it as a "candid" (real) moment.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1132434027856845/posts/1677540760012833/

https://archive.ph/KHTXp 

‍

‍

Fact Check
‍

In our research, this image was found to be 'AI-generated'. When a reverse image search and keyword scan were conducted to verify this viral photo, no credible media reports, official photographs, or any such posts on the celebrity couple's official social media handles were found.

‍

‍

WASIT also confirmed that the image is 'AI-generated'.
‍

‍

Conclusion
‍

Our research revealed that the photo of Virat Kohli and Anushka Sharma having breakfast is completely fake. This image does not depict a real moment, but has been created using Artificial Intelligence (AI).

‍