#FactCheck- AI-Generated Video Falsely Shows Girl Being Rescued From Debris in Nepal
Executive Summary:
A video is being widely circulated on social media in connection with the relief and rescue operations following the devastating floods in Nepal. The video shows security personnel rescuing a girl trapped under debris and later giving her soup. The video is being shared with the claim that security personnel rescued a girl who had been buried under mud three days after the disaster in Timure village of Nepal’s Rasuwa district. A research by CyberPeace Research Wing found the viral claim to be false. Our research revealed that the viral video does not depict a real incident but is AI-generated.
Claim:
A user on social media platform X (formerly Twitter) shared the viral video with the caption: “Nepal: It was nothing short of a miracle to witness this. After three days, death had to retreat and life emerged victorious. A six-year-old girl, who had been buried under the disaster debris for three days, was rescued by Nepal’s security forces. The incident took place in Timure village of Nepal’s Rasuwa district. Six-year-old Manisha was pulled out alive after being buried under debris caused by floods and landslides.”
https://x.com/AjitSinghRathi/status/2094306889001742826?s=20
Fact Check:
A close examination of the viral video revealed several inconsistencies, raising suspicions that the video was AI-generated. We then scanned the viral video using the AI detection tool Hive Moderation. According to the results, there is a 77 per cent likelihood that the viral video is AI-generated.
As part of our research, we scanned the video using the AI detection tool Wasitai. According to the results, the viral video is AI-generated.
Conclusion:
Our research found the viral claim to be false. Our findings revealed that the viral video does not depict a real incident but is AI-generated.
Related Blogs
Introduction
"Artificial Intelligence may be the new charlatan in town"
There is something almost wonderfully Indian about our current relationship with artificial intelligence. We are simultaneously afraid of it, fascinated by it, regulating it, funding it, using it and occasionally asking it to write the regulation meant to control it. In contrast, artificial intelligence seems to have figured out the oldest trick in the book: create an issue and then figure out how to solve it. Both the deepfake and the deepfake detector can be produced by it. It has the ability to both generate and detect false information. It can both authenticate and mimic your voice. It can create a fake image and determine if it is fake. The machine ,in other words, is increasingly becoming both the burglar and the security system. We now refer to this as innovation. Perhaps nothing better captures this peculiar moment than India’s most recent regulatory actions. The government has strengthened regulations pertaining to synthetic content such as requiring labelling and expediting the removal of illegal AI-generated information. After a legitimate government or court order, platforms are expected to take action within three hours, significantly reducing the removal window for some content. It took years for the internet to become ubiquitous. There are now three hours for the law to become transitory. This is the first great paradox of AI governance. Technology operates at the speed of creation. Law operates at the speed of procedure. The citizen is seated between the two.
The Age of the Digital Double
Indian courts are already dealing with this issue in more tangible ways. Cricket player Yuvraj Singh recently received relief from the Delhi High Court in a personality-rights case involving deepfakes created by AI and unlawful use of his identity. Courts have intervened against AI-generated and modified content in similar cases involving other public individuals. As a result, the law faces an odd dilemma: What exactly belongs to a person? In the past, humans used comparatively stable identifiers to understand identity, such as a name, portrait, signature, or voice. That simplicity has been disrupted by AI. You can now detach your face from your body. You may separate your throat from your voice. It is possible to distinguish between your emotions and your expressions. It is possible to fabricate your political beliefs without engaging in politics. The legitimacy of a person's existence is being requested to be protected by the law, not just their property which is a far more difficult issue.
When Artificial Intelligence Enters the Courtroom
The irony becomes richer when AI enters the courtroom itself. Courts are creating guidelines for the use of AI in the courtroom, just as they are being challenged to decide what happens when AI creates reality outside of it. Human primacy, accountability, transparency, data protection and judicial independence are highlighted in the Supreme Court’s proposed rules on the use of AI in courts. After all, there is one situation in which the justification that “the AI said so” should never be accepted. A hallucinated judgment is more than just a mistake in technology. It may turn into a mistake of authority in a legal system. A precedent can be confidently created by a machine. It can be cited with confidence by a lawyer and maybe then brought before a court for consideration. All of a sudden, we have created a flawless little bureaucratic ecology where everyone has been duped despite no one's intention to do so. It's not inevitable that machines will turn malevolent, but rather that people will grow unduly reliant on machines that seem authoritative.
The Great AI Contradiction
We asked, "What can AI do?" for years.What can AI do for us, we then enquired? We are starting to wonder what AI might do to humans. The following query ought to be more challenging: When it does, who is at fault? Because AI systems don't cleanly fit into the legal frames we inherited, that question becomes very challenging. Developers, model providers, data providers, deployers, platforms, and end users are among them. There may occasionally be a middleman. There is a victim occasionally. Surprisingly, there can occasionally be multiple roles at once. This point is made in a recent working paper on AI and consumer rights in India: while current consumer protection laws may apply to AI harms, the conventional division of accountability among manufacturers, sellers, and service providers becomes challenging when AI systems involve a much more dispersed value chain.
The Misunderstanding on AI’s Intelligence
This is the point at which our sense for policy sometimes fails. We are concerned that AI will develop superintelligence. The more imminent threat can be much less dramatic. It is not necessary for AI to surpass human intelligence in order to wreak great harm. All it needs to do is become more convincing, quicker, and less expensive than human verification. Artificial general intelligence is not necessary for a fraudster to con an elderly person. A supercomputer is not necessary for a political manipulator to create a candidate's voice. A stalker can create an intimate deepfake without being conscious. A pupil can file a hallucinated case citation without the assistance of a robot attorney. Ordinary human wrongdoing magnified by incredible technical magnitude is what it is.
The Real Test of AI Governance
The number of standards we create, the number of committees we form, or the number of compliance boxes platforms check will not ultimately determine the success of AI regulation. Something considerably simpler will be used to measure it. Can the legal system advise a regular citizen where to go, what to do, and who will be held accountable when an AI system impersonates, defrauds, surveils, manipulates, or denies them a service?
The presence of accountability following failure, not the absence of failure.
Sometimes the most advanced piece of technology in the room is still an old-fashioned institution: a law that works, a regulator that responds, a court that understands the technology and a human being willing to take responsibility. Because if AI is going to be both the fire and the fire extinguisher, we should at least make sure that someone other than the machine owns the building.
References
- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/government-tightens-deepfake-rules-mandates-ai-content-labels-and-three-hour-takedown-timeline/articleshow/133011656.cms?utm_source=chatgpt.com&from=mdr
- https://theleaflet.in/law-and-technology/explained-the-supreme-court-of-indias-draft-regulations-for-use-of-artificial-intelligence-in-courts-2026
- https://www.bananaip.com/intellepedia/yuvraj-singh-personality-rights-ai-deepfakes-delhi-high-court/
Executive Summary
A video circulating on social media claims that a Jaguar fighter jet of the Indian Air Force (IAF) failed to land during a takeoff and landing exercise held on April 22, 2026, at the Purvanchal Expressway in Uttar Pradesh. The claim suggests that the incident disrupted preparations for “Operation Sindoor.” However, an research by the CyberPeace Research Wing has found the claim to be false.
Claim
The video was shared by a Facebook user, ‘Meera MJ,’ alleging that the Jaguar aircraft could not land during the exercise conducted near Sultanpur. To verify the authenticity of the video, multiple keyframes were extracted and analyzed using reverse image search tools. This led to the original footage shared by ANI on its official X (formerly Twitter) handle on April 22, 2026. The authentic video of the air show does not show any such incident of a failed landing.
Fact Check
A detailed review of ANI’s social media posts also revealed no evidence supporting the viral claim. This strongly indicates that the circulating clip has been digitally manipulated by altering the original footage.
Further corroboration came from a report published by Bhaskar.com, which extensively covered the air show. According to the report, the event featured successful operations by multiple aircraft, including the C-295 transport aircraft landing on the expressway airstrip, followed by Jaguar jets taking off. Sukhoi and Mirage fighter jets also performed takeoff and landing drills, while M17 helicopters carried out commando mock operations. Additionally, the M32 Bhishma aircraft conducted ‘touch and go’
Conclusion:
The viral claim that a Jaguar fighter jet failed to land during the Indian Air Force drill is baseless. The video being circulated is digitally manipulated and does not reflect any real incident.
Executive Summary
A post is being widely circulated on social media claiming that the entire Delhi airport was submerged following heavy rainfall. The post questions the airport’s drainage system and attributes the situation to the negligence of its staff. The post further claims that the airport’s arrangements were exposed after just one spell of rain and that its drainage system needs to be upgraded using better technology. A research by the research wing of CyberPeace found that the viral video is not from Delhi airport but dates back to April 2024. At the time, heavy rainfall in Dubai caused flood-like conditions at the airport, affecting flight operations on waterlogged runways as well. Thus, an old video from Dubai is being falsely shared on social media as footage of Delhi airport.
Claim:
A user on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) shared the viral video with the caption: “Delhi Airport — the entire airport is submerged. This is the situation after just one spell of rain. A minor issue of drainage and negligence by the staff — the public is aware — now the negligence will be punished. ‘The drainage system technology must be developed.’”
https://x.com/RJMediaGroups/status/2096470339060736149
Factcheck
As part of our investigation, we conducted a reverse image search of keyframes from the video. During the search, we found the original video on a YouTube channel named The Indian Express, which was uploaded on April 17, 2024. According to the video description, the incident took place in Dubai. The post link and screenshot are provided below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9F1qTMIO5M
During our investigation, we found visuals similar to those in the viral video on the YouTube channel AlArabiyaEnglish. The video was uploaded on April 16, 2024. According to the information provided in the video description, several parts of the UAE were affected by flooding following sudden heavy rainfall on April 16, 2024. The heavy rains also affected operations at Dubai Airport, disrupting several flights. According to the report, the UAE recorded a record 254 mm of rainfall in less than 24 hours. In view of the adverse weather conditions, Dubai Airport advised passengers to travel only if absolutely necessary. The post link and screenshot are provided below.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KzIstkiOdp4
Conclusion:
Our investigation found that the viral video does not show Delhi Airport after heavy rainfall. The visuals are actually from Dubai Airport, where severe rainfall in the UAE in April 2024 led to flooding and disruptions to airport operations. Therefore, the viral video is old and has been falsely shared on social media with the misleading claim that it shows the current condition of Delhi Airport.
