#FactCheck - Viral Post of Gautam Adani’s Public Arrest Found to Be AI-Generated

Introduction

Misinformation is, to its basic meaning, incorrect or misleading information, it may or may not include specific malicious intent and includes inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, or false information and selective or half-truths. The main challenges in dealing with misinformation are defining and distinguishing misinformation from legitimate content. This complexity arises due to the rapid evolution and propagation which information undergoes on the digital platforms. Additionally, balancing the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression with content regulation by state actors poses a significant challenge. It requires careful consideration to avoid censorship while effectively combating harmful misinformation. 

Acknowledging the severe consequences of misinformation and the critical need to combat misinformation, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 has implemented key measures to address misinformation in India. These new provisions introduced under the new criminal laws in India penalise the deliberate creation, distribution, or publication of inaccurate information. Previously missing from the IPC, these sections offer an additional legal resource to counter the proliferation of falsehoods, complementing existing laws targeting the same issue.

Section 353 of the BNS on Statements Conducing to Public Mischief criminalises making, publishing, or circulating statements, false information, rumours, or reports, including through electronic means, with the intent or likelihood of causing various harmful outcomes. 

This section thus brings misinformation into its ambit, since misinformation has been traditionally used to induce public fear or alarm that may lead to offences against the State or public tranquillity or inciting one class or community to commit offences against another. The section also penalizes the promotion of enmity, hatred, or ill will among different religious, racial, linguistic, or regional groups. 

BNS also prescribes punishment of imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both for offences under section 353. Interestingly, a longer imprisonment of up to 5 years along with a fine has been prescribed to curb such offences in places of worship or during religious ceremonies. The only exception that may be availed under this section is granted to unsuspecting individuals who, believing the misinformation to be true, spread misinformation without any ill intent. However, this exception may not be as effective in curbing misinformation, since at the outset, the offence is hard to trace and has multiple pockets for individuals to seek protection without any mechanism to verify their intent.

The BNS also aims to regulate misinformation through Section 197(1)(d) on Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration. Under this provision, anyone who makes or publishes false or misleading information, whether it is in the form of spoken words, written, by signs, in visible representations, or through electronic communication, therefore, results in jeopardising the sovereignty, unity, integrity, or security of India is liable to face punishment in the form of imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both and if it occurs in a place of worship or during religious ceremonies, the quantum of punishment is increased to imprisonment for up to five years and may include a fine. Additionally, Section 212 (a) & (b) provides against furnishing false information. If a person who is legally obligated to provide information to a public servant, knowingly or reasonably believes that the information is false, and still furnishes it, they now face a punishment of six months imprisonment or a fine up to five thousand rupees or both. However,  if the false information pertains to the commission or prevention of an offence, or the apprehension of an offender, the punishment increases to imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.

Enforcement Mechanisms: CyberPeace Policy Wing Outlook

To ensure the effective enforcement of these provisions, coordination between the key stakeholders, i.e., the law enforcement agencies, digital platforms, and judicial oversight is essential. Law enforcement agencies must utilize technology such as data analytics and digital forensics for tracking and identifying the origins of false information. This technological capability is crucial for pinpointing the sources and preventing the further spread of misinformation. Simultaneously, digital platforms associated with misinformation content are required to implement robust monitoring and reporting mechanisms to detect and address the generated misleading content proactively. A supporting oversight by judicial bodies plays a critical role in ensuring that enforcement actions are conducted fairly and in line with legal standards. It helps maintain a balance between addressing misinformation and upholding fundamental rights such as freedom of speech. The success of the BNS in addressing these challenges will depend on the effective integration of these mechanisms and ongoing adaptation to the evolving digital landscape.

Resources:

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/250883_english_01042024.pdf 
• https://www.foxmandal.in/changes-brought-forth-by-the-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-2023/ 
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/spreading-fake-news-could-land-people-in-jail-for-three-years-under-new-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-bill/articleshow/102669105.cms?from=mdr 

‍

Introduction

The debate between free speech and social responsibility is one of the oldest, long-running debates in history. Free speech is considered to be at the heart of every democracy. It is considered the “mother” of all other freedoms, enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution under Part III: Fundamental Rights. It takes various shapes and forms according to the sociopolitical context of society. Evelyn Beatrice Hall, a prominent English writer of the 19th century, laid the foundation of every democracy when she wrote in her book, "I disapprove of what you say, but I willdefend to the death your right to say it." The drastic misuse of social media to disseminate propaganda and fakenews makes it a marketplace of half-baked truth, becoming the antithesis ofwhat early philosophers dreamed of for a democratic modern age. Losethe ethics, and there you have it, the modern conceptualisation of freedom ofspeech and expression in the digital age. The right to freedom of speech andexpression is one of the most fundamental rights, but its exercise is notunfettered, and certain limits are placed upon this right under Art. 19 (2).Every right comes with a corresponding duty, and the exercise of such freedomalso puts the citizenry under the responsibility not to violate the rights ofothers and not to use the media to demean any other person.

SocialMedia: The New Public Square or a Weaponised Echo Chamber

InIndia, Art. 19(1)(a) of the constitution guarantees the right to freedom ofspeech and expression, but it is not absolute. Under Art. 19(2), this right issubject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, decency,morality, and national security. This is construed as a freedom for everyindividual to freely express their opinions, but not to incite violence, spreadfalsehoods, or harm others’ dignity. Unfortunately, the boundaries betweenthese are increasingly blurred.

Thedissemination of unfiltered media and the strangulation of innocence by pushingoften vulgar and obscene content down the throats of individuals, withoutverifying the age and gender profile of the social media user, is a big farcein the name of free speech and a conscious attempt by the intermediaries andsocial media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Threads, etc., to wriggleout of their responsibility. A prime example is when Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, on7th January 2025, gave a statement asserting less intervention into what peoplefind on its social media platforms as the new “best practice”. While lessinterference would have worked in a generation that merely operated on thediffering, dissenting, and raw ideas bred by the minds of differentindividuals, it is not the case for this day and age. There has been asignificant rise in cases where social media platforms have been used as abattleground for disputes, spreading communal violence, misinformation, anddisinformation.

Thereis no debate about the fact that social media platforms have fostered a globalexpression, making the world a global village, bringing everyone together. Onthe other hand, the platforms have become the epicentre of computer-basedcrimes, where children and teenagers often become prey to these crimes,cyberbullying, and cyberstalking.  

Rising Importance of Platform Accountability

Themost pertinent question that is to be asked with a conscious mind is whether anunregulated media is a reflection of Freedom of Speech, a right given to us byour constitution under Article. 19(1)(a), or whether free speech is just a garbby big stakeholders, and we are all victims of an impending infodemic andvictims of AI algorithms, because, as per the reports that surfaced during theCovid-19 pandemic, India saw a dramatic 214% rise in false information. Anotherreport by the UNESCO-Ipsos survey revealed that 85% of Indian respondentsencounter online hate speech, with around 64% pointing to social media as aprimary source.

While the focus on platform accountability is critical, it is equally important to recognise that the right to free speech is not absolute. Therefore, users also bear a constitutional responsibility while exercising this right. Free expression in a democratic society must be accompanied by civic digital behaviour, which includes refraining from spreading hate speech, misinformation, or engaging in harmful conduct online. The most recent example of this is the case of Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia vs. UOI (popularly known as “Latent Case”); the court came down heavily on the hosts and makers of the show and made its position crystal clear by stating, “there is nothinglike a fundamental right on platter...the fundamental rights are all followedby a duty...unless those people understand duty, there is no [...] deal withthat kind of elements...if somebody wants to enjoy fundamental rights, thiscountry gives a guarantee to enjoy, but guarantee is with a duty so thatguarantee will involve performing that duty also” .

The Way Forward: CyberPeace Suggests

In order to realise the benefits and derive the true benefits from the rights we are provided, especially the one in discussion, i.e., Freedom of Speech and Expression, the government and the designated intermediaries and regulators have to prepare both roadmaps, one for “Platform Accountability” and one for "User Accountability”, wherein the regulators with a reasonable foresight should conduct Algorithm Risk Audits which is a technique to make algorithms and there effects on content feeds visible. It can be an effective tool and an objective manner to compare how algorithms are automatically pushing different content to different users in an unfair or unbalanced way. As for user accountability, “Digital Literacy” is the way forward, ensuring that social media remains a marketplace of ideas and does not become a minefield of misfires.

Executive Summary:

An old video dated 2023 showing the arrest of a Bangladeshi migrant for murdering a Polish woman has been going viral massively on social media claiming that he is an Indian national. This viral video was fact checked and debunked. 

Claim:

The video circulating on social media alleges that an Indian migrant was arrested in Greece for assaulting a  young Christian girl. It has been shared with narratives maligning Indian migrants. The post was first shared on Facebook by an account known as “Voices of hope” and has been shared in the report as well. 

Post Link

Facts:

The CyberPeace Research team has utilized Google Image Search to find the original source of the claim. Upon searching we find the original news report published by Greek City Times in June 2023.

Post Link

The person arrested in the video clip is a Bangladeshi migrant and not of Indian origin. CyberPeace Research Team assessed the available police reports and other verifiable sources to confirm that the arrested person is Bangladeshi.

The video has been dated 2023, relating to a case that occurred in Poland and relates to absolutely nothing about India migrants.

Neither the Polish government nor authorized news agency outlets reported Indian citizens for the controversy in question.

‍

Original Post Link

Conclusion:

The viral video falsely implicating an Indian migrant in a Polish woman’s murder is misleading. The accused is a Bangladeshi migrant, and the incident has been misrepresented to spread misinformation. This highlights the importance of verifying such claims to prevent the spread of xenophobia and false narratives.

• Claim: Video shows an Indian immigrant being arrested in Greece for allegedly assaulting a young Christian girl.
• Claimed On: X (Formerly Known As Twitter) and Facebook.
• Fact Check: Misleading.