#FactCheck - Visuals of Jharkhand Police catching a truck load of cash and gold coins is an AI-generated image

Introduction

Intricate and winding are the passageways of the modern digital age, a place where the reverberations of truth effortlessly blend, yet hauntingly contrast, with the echoes of falsehood. The latest thread in this fabric of misinformation is a claim that has scurried through the virtual windows of social media platforms, gaining the kind of traction that is both revelatory and alarming of our times. It is a narrative that speaks to the heart of India's cultural and religious fabric—the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, a project enshrined in the collective consciousness of a nation and steeped in historical significance.

The claim in question, a spectre of misinformation, suggests that the Ram Temple's construction has been covertly shifted 3 kilometres from its original, hallowed ground—the birthplace, as it were, of Lord Ram. This assertion, which spread through the echo chambers of social media, has been bolstered by a screenshot of Google Maps, a digital cartographer that has accidentally become a pawn in this game of truth and deception. The image purports to showcase the location of Ram Mandir as distinct and distant from the site where the Babri Masjid once stood, a claim went viral on social media and has caught the public's reactions.

The Viral Tempest 

In the face of such a viral tempest, IndiaTV's fact-checking arm, IndiaTVFactCheck, has stepped into the fray, wielding the sword of veracity against the Goliath of falsehood. Their investigation into this viral claim was meticulous, a deep dive into the digital representations that have fueled this controversy. Upon examining the viral Google Maps screenshot, they noticed markings at two locations: one labelled as Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Temple and the other as Babri Masjid. The latter, upon closer inspection and with the aid of Google's satellite prowess, was revealed to be the Shri Sita-Ram Birla Temple, a place of worship that stands in quiet dignity, far removed from the contentious whispers of social media.

The truth, as it often does, lay buried beneath layers of user-generated content on Google Maps, where the ability to tag any location with a name has sometimes led to the dissemination of incorrect information. This can be corrected, of course, but not before it has woven itself into the fabric of public discourse. The fact-check by IndiaTV revealed that the location mentioned in the viral screenshot is, indeed, the Shri Sita-Ram Birla Temple and the Ram Temple is being constructed at its original, intended site.

This revelation is not merely a victory for truth over falsehood but also a testament to the resilience of facts in the face of a relentless onslaught of misinformation. It is a reminder that the digital realm, for all its wonders, is also a shadowy theatre where narratives are constructed and deconstructed with alarming ease. The very basis of all the fake narratives that spread around significant events, such as the consecration ceremony of the Ram Temple, is the manipulation of truth, the distortion of reality to serve nefarious ends of spreading misinformation.

Fake Narratives; Misinformation

Consider the elaborate fake narratives spun around the ceremony, where hours have been spent on the internet building a web of deceit. Claims such as 'Mandir wahan nahin banaya gaya' (The temple is not being built at the site of the demolition) and the issuance of new Rs 500 notes for the Ram Mandir were some pieces of misinformation that went viral on social media amid the preparations for the consecration ceremony. These repetitive claims, albeit differently worded, were spread to further a single narrative on the internet, a phenomenon that a study published in Nature said could be attributed to people taking some peripheral cues as signals for truth, which can increase with repetition.

The misinformation incidents surrounding the Ram Temple in Ayodhya are a microcosm of the larger battle between truth and misinformation. The false claims circulating online assert that the ongoing construction is not taking place at the original Babri Masjid site but rather 3 kilometres away. This misinformation, shared widely on social media has been debunked upon closer examination. The claim is based on a screenshot of Google Maps showing two locations: the construction site of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Temple and another spot labeled 'Babar Masjid permanently closed' situated 3 kilometers away. The assertion questions the legitimacy of demolishing the Babri Masjid if the temple is being built elsewhere. However, a thorough fact-check reveals the claim to be entirely unfounded.

Deep Scrutiny

Upon scrutiny, the screenshot indicates that the second location marked as 'Babar Masjid' is, in fact, the Sita-Ram Birla Temple in Ayodhya. This is verified by comparing the Google Maps satellite image with the actual structure of the Birla Temple. Notably, the viral screenshot misspells 'Babri Masjid' as 'Babar Masjid,' casting doubt on its credibility. Satellite images from Google Earth Pro clearly depict the construction of a temple-like structure at the precise coordinates of the original Babri Masjid demolition site (26°47'43.74'N 82°11'38.77'E). Comparing old and new satellite images further confirms that major construction activities began in 2011, aligning with the initiation of the Ram Temple construction.

Moreover, existing photographs of the Babri Masjid, though challenging to precisely match, share essential structural elements with the current construction site, reinforcing the location as the original site of the mosque. Hence the viral claim that the Ram Temple is being constructed 3 kilometers away from the Babri Masjid site is indubitably false. Evidence from historical photographs, satellite images and google images conclusively refute this misinformation, attesting that the temple construction is indeed taking place at the same location as the original Babri Masjid.

Viral Misinformation: A false claim based on a misleading Google Maps screenshot suggests the Ram Temple construction in Ayodhya has been covertly shifted 3 kilometres away from its original Babri Masjid site.

Fact Check Revealed: IndiaTVFactCheck debunked the misinformation, confirming that the viral screenshot actually showed the Shri Sita-Ram Birla Temple, not the Babri Masjid site. The Ram Temple is indeed being constructed at its original, intended location, exposing the falsehood of the claim.

Conclusion 

The case of the Ram Temple is a pitiful reminder of the power of misinformation and the significance of fact-checking in preserving the integrity of truth. It is a clarion call to question, to uphold the integrity of facts in a world increasingly stymied in the murky waters of falsehoods. Widespread misinformation highlights the critical role of fact-checking in dispelling false narratives. It serves as a reminder of the ongoing battle between truth and misinformation in the digital age, emphasising the importance of upholding the integrity of facts for a more informed society. 

References 

• https://www.indiatvnews.com/fact-check/fact-check-is-ram-temple-being-built-3-km-away-from-the-birthplace-here-truth-behind-viral-claim-2024-01-19-912633
• https://www.thequint.com/news/webqoof/misinformation-spread-around-events-ayodhya-ram-mandir-g20-elections-bharat-jodo-yatra

‍

Introduction

Assisted Reproductive Technology (“ART”) refers to a diverse set of medical procedures designed to aid individuals or couples in achieving pregnancy when conventional methods are unsuccessful. This umbrella term encompasses various fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilization (IVF), intrauterine insemination (IUI), and gamete and embryo manipulation. ART procedures involve the manipulation of both male and female reproductive components to facilitate conception.

The dynamic landscape of data flows within the healthcare sector, notably in the realm of ART, demands a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between privacy regulations and medical practices. In this context, the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011, play a pivotal role, designating health information as "sensitive personal data or information" and underscoring the importance of safeguarding individuals' privacy. This sensitivity is particularly pronounced in the ART sector, where an array of personal data, ranging from medical records to genetic information, is collected and processed. The recent Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, in conjunction with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, establishes a framework for the regulation of ART clinics and banks, presenting a layered approach to data protection.

A note on data generated by ART

Data flows in any sector are scarcely uniform and often not easily classified under straight-jacket categories. Consequently, mapping and identifying data and its types become pivotal. It is believed that most data flows in the healthcare sector are highly sensitive and personal in nature, which may severely compromise the privacy and safety of an individual if breached. The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011 (“SPDI Rules”) categorizes any information pertaining to physical, physiological, mental conditions or medical records and history as “sensitive personal data or information”; this definition is broad enough to encompass any data collected by any ART facility or equipment. These include any information collected during the screening of patients, pertaining to ovulation and menstrual cycles, follicle and sperm count, ultrasound results, blood work etc. It also includes pre-implantation genetic testing on embryos to detect any genetic abnormality. 

But data flows extend beyond mere medical procedures and technology. Health data also involves any medical procedures undertaken, the amount of medicine and drugs administered during any procedure, its resultant side effects, recovery etc. Any processing of the above-mentioned information, in turn, may generate more personal data points relating to an individual’s political affiliations, race, ethnicity, genetic data such as biometrics and DNA etc.; It is seen that different ethnicities and races react differently to the same/similar medication and have different propensities to genetic diseases. Further, it is to be noted that data is not only collected by professionals but also by intelligent equipment like AI which may be employed by any facility to render their service. Additionally, dissemination of information under exceptional circumstances (e.g. medical emergency) also affects how data may be classified. Considerations are further nuanced when the fundamental right to identity of a child conceived and born via ART may be in conflict with the fundamental right to privacy of a donor to remain anonymous. 

Intersection of Privacy laws and ART laws: 

In India, ART technology is regulated by the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (“ART Act”). With this, the Union aims to regulate and supervise assisted reproductive technology clinics and ART banks, prevent misuse and ensure safe and ethical practice of assisted reproductive technology services. When read with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) and other ancillary guidelines, the two legislations provide some framework regulations for the digital privacy of health-based apps.

The ART Act establishes a National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Registry (“National Registry”) which acts as a central database for all clinics and banks and their nature of services. The Act also establishes a National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board (“National Board”)  under the Surrogacy Act to monitor the implementation of the act and advise the central government on policy matters. It also supervises the functioning of the National Registry, liaises with State Boards and curates a code of conduct for professionals working in ART clinics and banks. Under the DPDP Act, these bodies (i.e. National Board, State Board, ART clinics and banks) are most likely classified as data fiduciaries (primarily clinics and banks), data processors (these may include National Board and State boards) or an amalgamation of both (these include any appropriate authority established under the ART Act for investigation of complaints, suspend or cancellation of registration of clinics etc.) depending on the nature of work undertaken by them. If so classified, then the duties and liabilities of data fiduciaries and processors would necessarily apply to these bodies. As a result, all bodies would necessarily have to adopt Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs) and other organizational measures to ensure compliance with privacy laws in place. This may be considered one of the most critical considerations of any ART facility since any data collected by them would be sensitive personal data pertaining to health, regulated by the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011 (“SPDI Rules 2011”). These rules provide for how sensitive personal data or information are to be collected, handled and processed by anyone.

The ART Act independently also provides for the duties of ART clinics and banks in the country. ART clinics and banks are required to inform the commissioning couple/woman of all procedures undertaken and all costs, risks, advantages, and side effects of their selected procedure. It mandatorily ensures that all information collected by such clinics and banks to not informed to anyone except the database established by the National Registry or in cases of medical emergency or on order of court. Data collected by clinics and banks (these include details on donor oocytes, sperm or embryos used or unused) are required to be detailed and must be submitted to the National Registry online. ART banks are also required to collect personal information of donors including name, Aadhar number, address and any other details. By mandating online submission, the ART Act is harmonized with the DPDP Act, which regulates all digital personal data and emphasises free, informed consent.

Conclusion

With the increase in active opt-ins for ART, data privacy becomes a vital consideration for all healthcare facilities and professionals. Safeguard measures are not only required on a corporate level but also on a governmental level. It is to be noted that in the 262 Session of the Rajya Sabha, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology reported 165 data breach incidents involving citizen data from January 2018 to October 2023 from the Central Identities Data Repository despite publicly denying. This discovery puts into question the safety and integrity of data that may be submitted to the National Registry database, especially given the type of data (both personal and sensitive information) it aims to collate. At present the ART Act is well supported by the DPDP Act. However, further judicial and legislative deliberations are required to effectively regulate and balance the interests of all stakeholders.

References

• The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011
• Caring for Intimate Data in Fertility Technologies https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3411764.3445132 
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
• https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/pharmacogenomics-and-race-can-heritage-affect-drug-disposition  

Introduction

For more than 10 years, WhatsApp has been designed around one seemingly trivial but impactful idea: your phone number is your digital identity. This concept offered simplicity in terms of contact discovery and onboard- ing but inevitably exposed users to fraud, spam and the everyday necessity of sharing personal phone numbers with complete strangers in group chats and conversations. On June 29th Meta finally revealed a major move: you’ll now be able to choose and reservate a WhatsApp username and communicate without sharing your phone number.  

This shift to a username based identity marks the company catching up to platforms like Telegram and Signal, which have utilized this functionality for years. 

However, while presented as a push towards greater privacy for the millions using its platform, this new change has already created some alarm around impersonation, cybersquatting, and identity theft. The issues became amplified when, according to reports, the Indian Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology advised WhatsApp to halt the implementation of the new features while it clarifies details, shifting a mundane app update into a high-stakes discussion on digital privacy, platform responsibility, and government regulation.

How does the mechanism work?

“WhatsApp’s username is an added pseudonym layer on its current phone number architecture, not a replacement,” Meta said in a statement on Thursday, as reported by TechCrunch. A WhatsApp username is a three to 35-character name containing lower case letters, numbers, periods and underscores that must contain at least one letter and “should not look like a website address.” The feature will allow you to “reserve a unique identifier that you can share as an alternative to your phone number in WhatsApp Settings - Accounts - Username.”

It said the usernames will work in parallel with a username key which can serve as a passphrase to initiate conversation “with a recipient before sending a message for the first time.”

“The change - which will have some additional, protective measures like reserving usernames for people of public interest or those that would cause impersonation, and rate limits on claiming names - can help maintain phone number protection, while offering people more choices,” Meta said. WhatsApp said usernames will replace phone numbers as the primary way to initiate new chats, but will not be publicly searchable: “Anyone you message would need your exact username, and would still need you to respond.”

The Genuine Privacy Case 

The upside is real. Phone numbers double as keys to two-factor authentication, banking apps and SIM-swap fraud, so handing one to a new acquaintance, a group chat of strangers or a customer-support bot has always carried quiet risk. Numbers harvested from public groups already fuel spam and scam campaigns, and a username-first model narrows that exposure considerably. 

For journalists, small business owners and anyone who fields messages from people they've never met, decoupling identity from a number that also unlocks their bank account is a meaningful, overdue shift – and one that WhatsApp's closest competitors adopted years ago without major incident. 

The Scammer's Paradise Scenario

The trouble lies in what a username removes. A phone number was never just an identifier; it was also a rough verification signal and, for law enforcement, a traceable data point. Security reporters testing the reservation system found that lookalike handles mimicking prominent Indian politicians, film stars and the Reserve Bank of India remained available to claim. Crypto executive Changpeng Zhao's own failed bid to capture his desired handle highlighted the first-come, first-served danger of the rollout and led researchers to advise people to manually activate the optional username key that Meta leaves disabled by default. 

The Mozilla Foundation was unvarnished about the tradeoff, noting that impersonation from fake accounts and scams are an “inevitable consequence” of a design that abandons the “implicit signal of authenticity” that comes from owning a phone number. 

Indian entrepreneur Ankur Warikoo called the rollout a potential “disaster” if robust enforcement against fraud isn’t immediately applied because scammers could register handles a few characters removed from a popular brand or public figure to launch investment and payment schemes, a concern mirrored by cyber security researchers who observed that many users neglect to check verification badges before trusting an account.

India's Regulatory Scrutiny of WhatsApp's Username Feature

So far the strongest reaction comes from New Delhi. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued an official notice to Meta's compliance office that it should “temporarily suspend the feature” in the country pending further consultations and “provided an explanation in three days”. The cited concerns involve “digital arrest” fraud, a rapid boom category that involves crooks impersonating investigators like those with India's CBI, judges or customs agents to extort victims, in addition to standard concerns around phishing and bank or government impersonation. 

A subtler concern, for India’s government anyway, is “traceability.” 

At present, say officials, an Indian mobile number is a launching pad to determine whether a given suspect is a domestic or international actor, while a username and foreign SIM would leave authorities nowhere to begin. The Department of Telecommunications independently voiced concerns over how the change intersects with its SIM-binding regulations and over WhatsApp's lag time for such requests. The MeitY notice, the legal basis for which, incidentally, is in contention with some digital rights groups, specifically invokes Section 79 of the IT Act and various IT Rules from 2021 and provisions on identity theft and impersonation that target individual criminals rather than the tech tools. Not everyone, however, shares MeitY’s reading of the legal ground: the Internet Freedom Foundation says that Section 79 “deal with liability of intermediary” and “does not confer on the government power to license the features of a product,” while arguing the relevant criminal statutes were designed to criminalize impersonators, not tech platforms whose services are misused, echoing concerns that killed a similar government advisement about AI models last spring. 

In the meantime, Meta says usernames are unavailable in the country for now and the multilayered safeguards it designed were always intended for exactly this level of risk.

Conclusion 

WhatsApp's username feature is neither a total privacy upgrade nor a major security problem; instead, it reallocates risk, reducing phone number exposure while adding a risk of identity spoofing and misuse. Whether it pays off will hinge on the strength of Meta's crackdown on fraudulent usernames, the uptake of extra security features like the username key and whether the company can adequately satisfy regulatory concerns about traceability and user safety. Until all those questions are fully settled, users may want to use the feature tentatively, secure a desired username, enable any other protections and be watchful about new contacts.

References

1. https://blog.whatsapp.com/its-time-to-reserve-your-whatsapp-username
2. https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/story/whatsapp-usernames-why-indias-top-creators-fear-scams-impersonation-and-identity-theft-540359-2026-07-02
3. https://www.outlookindia.com/national/outlook-explains-why-is-the-indian-government-worried-about-whatsapp-usernames
4. https://techcrunch.com/2026/06/29/whatsapp-now-lets-you-reserve-usernames/
5. https://bestmediainfo.com/mediainfo/mediainfo-digital/whatsapp-says-username-feature-not-live-yet-after-meity-asks-meta-to-pause-rollout-12124813 

‍