#FactCheck -AI-Manipulated Clip Misrepresents PM Modi’s Remarks on Iran-Israel Conflict
Executive Summary
Amid the ongoing conflict between the US-Israel and Iran, a video of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is being widely circulated on social media. In the clip, he is allegedly heard supporting Israel and calling Iran a “terrorist state.” The video also appears to show him speaking about the idea of “Akhand Bharat.” Many users are sharing this video as genuine. However, a detailed research by the CyberPeacefound that the claim is false. The viral video is a deepfake created using AI technology.
Claim:
A Facebook page named “Pushpendra Kulshreshtha” shared the video on March 23, 2026, with a caption suggesting that PM Modi made strong remarks in support of Israel and against Iran.
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, we first conducted a keyword search to find any credible reports or official statements where PM Modi made such remarks. However, no reliable news reports or authentic videos supporting the claim were found. We then extracted keyframes from the viral video and performed a reverse image search using Google Lens. This led us to the original video posted on the X (formerly Twitter) handle of ANI on March 12, 2026.
The visuals, including PM Modi’s attire and the stage setup, matched the viral clip—indicating that the fake video was created using this original footage. However, in the authentic video, PM Modi did not make any statements about Iran, Israel, or “Akhand Bharat” as seen in the viral version. In the original footage, PM Modi is seen addressing the NXT Summit in Delhi, where he spoke about the global energy crisis arising from ongoing conflicts and highlighted the expansion of LPG and PNG facilities in India. Additionally, a customised keyword search led us to a press release issued by the Prime Minister's Office regarding his address at the summit. The statement heard in the viral clip was not found there either.
Conclusion:
The viral video of PM Modi is a deepfake. He did not make any statement calling Iran a “terrorist state” or expressing support for Israel in the manner shown. The original video is from a summit held in Delhi and has been manipulated using AI to spread misleading claims.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
A video clip of Indian Army Chief Upendra Dwivedi is being widely shared across social media platforms with the claim that he criticised the Indian government's policy towards Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. In the viral clip, the Army Chief is allegedly heard saying that India is doing nothing except sending money to the Taliban government due to the Centre’s failed policies.
However, CyberPeace Research Wing research found the claim to be false. The viral video is a deepfake. In the original footage, General Upendra Dwivedi was speaking about Operation Sindoor and the preparedness of the Indian Armed Forces for a possible “Operation Sindoor 2.0.” He made no remarks regarding the Taliban or the government’s Afghanistan policy.
Claim
An X user named “XaQil” shared the viral video on May 31, 2026, with the caption:“Due to failed policies of the Central Government, India is doing nothing except sending Money to Taliban government. How can money alone do everything?” — Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi.
Fact Check
In the viral video, General Dwivedi is purportedly heard making remarks about India’s Afghanistan policy, the Taliban, Pakistan, Iran, and India’s diplomatic position. To verify the claim, we searched for the original source of the video. A reverse image search of key frames led us to the authentic footage posted by news agency ANI on its official X account on May 30, 2026.
In the original video, General Dwivedi was responding to a question about Operation Sindoor. He stated that the operation was still ongoing, hostilities had only paused temporarily, and that the Indian Armed Forces were fully prepared if “Operation Sindoor 2.0” became necessary.
He also spoke about enhancing coordination among the three services and maintaining operational readiness.”
No part of his statement mentioned the Taliban, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, or criticism of the Central Government.
Further corroboration came from media reports covering the same event. According to a report published by Navbharat Times on May 30, 2026, General Dwivedi made the remarks during the passing-out parade of the 150th course of the National Defence Academy (NDA), where he attended as the chief guest. He reiterated that the armed forces were fully prepared for “Operation Sindoor 2.0” if required.
Since the content of the viral clip did not match the original statement, we examined it using InVID’s MeVer Deepfake Detector. The tool flagged signs of AI manipulation and indicated that the video had likely been altered.
Conclusion
Cyber Peace Foundation found that the viral video purportedly showing Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi criticising the Indian government’s policy towards the Taliban is a deepfake. The Army Chief made no such remarks. The original video was recorded during an NDA event, where he spoke about Operation Sindoor and the preparedness of the Indian Armed Forces for a possible future operation. The viral clip has been manipulated using AI to spread a false narrative.
Introduction
Did you know that millions of workers today earn their livelihood through digital platforms such as Uber, Lyft, Deliveroo, Amazon Flex, Swiggy, and Zomato? The gig economy refers to a labour market in which individuals earn income through short term, temporary, task based, or freelance work arrangements rather than traditional long term employment. Most gig work is facilitated through digital platforms such as Uber, Lyft, Deliveroo, Amazon Flex, Swiggy, and Upwork, which connect workers directly with customers seeking specific services. While the gig economy has created unprecedented opportunities for flexible work, it has also exposed workers to challenges such as insecure employment, lack of social security, unfair pay, and algorithmic control. To address these concerns, the International Labour Organization adopted Convention No. 193, the world's first binding international treaty dedicated to platform workers. The Convention marks a significant step towards ensuring decent work in the digital age and is expected to guide nations in building stronger legal and social protection frameworks for the rapidly expanding gig economy.
First Gig Economy Treaty at Glance
On June 12, 2026, the course of global labor governance took a decisive turn when, at its 114th International Labour Conference in Geneva, the ILO finally ratified the Decent Work in the Platform Economy Convention (ILO Convention No. 193) with a vote of 406-8-36. This first-ever binding instrument setting labor standards for digital platform/gig workers represents the product of a lengthy multi-year debate leading to an international understanding that labor law itself had to be redefined to apply to the digital age. The Convention sought to fill a regulatory gap in which "corporation power, algorithmic governance, work informality, and workers’ rightlessness defined the space."
The Genesis: How the Convention Came to Be
The negotiations of ILO Convention No. 193 were long, complex, and controversial. The systematic ILO attention on the gig economy was started during the beginning of the 2010s as on-demand app-based models provided by Uber, Lyft, Deliveroo, Amazon Flex, etc., began to transform the labor market fundamentally. The problem concerned is mass misclassification of workers.
Labeling platform workers as "independent contractors," as opposed to "employees," allows digital platforms to escape many standard labor law obligations such as minimum wage standards, social security benefits, health and safety standards, and the right to organize and bargain collectively.
Calls for international action escalated with the growth of the gig economy. 435 million people in the world were active in online gig work as of 2023, based on the World Bank Report. The platform work was added to the agenda of the ILO Governing Body in 2023. In 2024, a questionnaire was sent to member States and social partners and compiled into Report V(2): Realizing decent work in the platform economy (February 2025).
A decisive turning point occurred at the 113th International Labour Conference in June 2025 when, despite objections from employer representatives and governments like the United States, India, and Switzerland, delegates agreed to adopt both a binding Convention and a Recommendation on the issue.
A Standard-Setting Committee then produced a draft instrument throughout 2025 and early 2026. The committee's text was adopted by the committee on June 11, 2026, and by the conference plenary the following day. Civil society groups, including Privacy International and Human Rights Watch, played a role in the process through their recommendations regarding algorithmic governance, data privacy, and inclusive coverage.
Scope and Definitional Framework
The most important and contentious aspect of the Convention is its scope. The text defines "digital labour platforms" as being covered, as well as "all digital platform workers… whether in the formal or informal economy. "It is designed this way precisely because previous attempts at regulating platforms, such as the 2024 EU Platform Work Directive, which was weakened considerably by the Council's final approval, were narrow and open to carve-outs. "Digital platform worker," according to Convention No. 193, is defined as "a person who is in employment or engaged in work for the provision of a service organised and/or mediated by a digital labour platform." It makes no distinction regarding employee status, thereby evading the definitional trap that allowed platforms to deny responsibility by defining workers as self-employed. The platforms covered in the Convention include location-based (food delivery, ride-hailing, domestic care, and construction services) and online/cloud-based platforms (data annotation, content moderation, creative freelancing, and software development).
Key Substantive Provisions
- Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work :Convention 193 requires each state that ratifies it to make arrangements to "respect, promote, and realise" these fundamental principles and rights at work, which under the 1998 ILO Declaration were identified as freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; the elimination of forced or compulsory labour; the abolition of child labour and the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation. The question of collective bargaining rights is especially important since digital platforms have not in the past been willing to accept unions and bargaining processes, claiming that since those who work on the platform are classified as independent contractors, they do not have the right to bargain collectively.
- Fair Pay and Parity of Treatment :The Convention enshrines equal pay and treatment for gig workers: "not less favorable conditions than those offered to workers of the same employment status classification." This has the aim of remedying the two-tier system maintained by a number of digital platforms, where workers performing the equivalent job role of employees are provided with considerably lower remuneration, lacking the benefits, stability, and protection afforded to employees under statutory labor law.
- Transparency and Algorithmic Accountability:One of the most innovative features of Convention 193 is its attempt to tackle algorithmic management. Digital platforms must supply information about the terms of the working relationship in a manner that is "timely, verifiable, and easily accessible and comprehensible" and, "in all cases prior to any significant changes," must disclose how automated systems allocate work, set pay, and determine termination decisions. Civil society organisations, such as Privacy International and Human Rights Watch, sought to make algorithmic control, including human oversight over automated decisions to impose disciplinary sanctions, legally binding. While the final provision fell short of doing so, it represents a new standard for algorithmic transparency in international labour law.
- Occupational Safety and Health :Each member state will be required to take steps to prevent occupational accidents, diseases, and injuries "affecting platform workers." For location-based gig workers, such as delivery and ride-hailing drivers who are repeatedly placed in hazardous and unstable work environments, this provision is vital in addressing what is frequently referred to as a 'silent crisis' within the platform economy, as workers are often ineligible for statutory workplace injury coverage and compensation schemes.
- Social Security Access:Possibly the most significant structural reform the Convention seeks to bring about, gig workers will have a right to access social security (including medical coverage, sick pay, and retirement and maternity/parental/sick benefits), which they have been able to bypass on the grounds of independent contractor status. For decades, digital platforms have lowered labor costs by externalizing the costs of social insurance onto gig workers themselves or public welfare systems. Convention 193 attempts to render that strategy illegal under international law.
- Protection for migrant and refugee workers :There are provisions protecting migrant and refugee platform workers and ensuring rights and protection throughout the life cycle of work, covering recruitment to employment and providing protection against discrimination. Migrant workers are over-represented among those employed in low-paid and informal gig work, where they face the highest risks of exploitation and deteriorating work conditions.
- Dispute resolution: Convention 193 establishes for platform workers the right to effective and impartial complaint and dispute resolution procedures as well as appropriate remedies, meaning when a country ratifies and domesticates the convention, workers will be empowered to pursue direct claims against digital platforms, overcoming the traditional obstacles placed in the way of such action.
Enforcement Architecture and Its Limitations
Despite the convention's potential, it is subject to key difficulties in implementation. The ILO does not have the enforcement power of the World Trade Organization, and simply ratifying a Convention does not automatically give domestic law effects. Countries must integrate the Convention into their national legislation, and ratifying members are not bound to implement it until 12 months after the Convention is ratified, which has also required two ratifications for entry into force. The Convention has optional provisions excluding the scope, where the argument is for the need of flexibility in the varied labour markets. While the International Trade Union Confederation, in reaction to the exclusions, has argued that large numbers of workers could be out of its protection, the countries that resort to the exceptions have to give a justification for this practice. The enforcement of the Convention is largely a matter of political will. Countries that, like the United States, voted against the Convention, will certainly choose not to ratify and implement it in their own legal system, leaving the gig workers out of its scope.
Geopolitical and Comparative Context
Convention No. 193 did not arise in a vacuum. There has been a trend of national governments regulating platform work in various ways. Spain's Riders' Law (2021) provided for a legal presumption of employment for delivery riders, while the UK Supreme Court ruled that Uber drivers are workers in 2021, entitling them to minimum wage and holidays. The French Constitutional Council (2020) found platform worker charter clauses consistent with rights. Some Indian states have promoted registration for gig workers for social security purposes (though national legislation is still needed). Convention No. 193 standardises these varied efforts through international normative agreement and particularly helps lower-income states lacking capacity or power against global platforms.
Conclusion
While ILO Convention No. 193 represents a momentous milestone for platform workers, the true impact of the Convention rests on ratification, domestic legislation, and judicial enforcement, alongside consistent vigilance on the part of the trade unions and civil society. Its most significant accomplishment to date is the establishment of a new international norm: for the first time, it establishes under international law that the labor rights of platform and gig workers are state responsibilities, not discretionary private undertakings by companies, a fact made urgently necessary by the growing strength of platform power.
References
- https://www.ilo.org/resource/conference-paper/ilc/113/draft-resolution-and-proposed-conclusions-standard-setting-committee-decent
- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/12/un-adopts-treaty-setting-standards-for-gig-economy-workers
- https://www.ilo.org/node/697106
- https://www.europeanpapers.eu/e-journal/decent-work-gig-economy-appraisal-eu-ilo-regulation-digital-labour-platforms
- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/worlds-fi
- https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2026/06/14/2003859085
Introduction
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITy) released the Draft Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Second Amendment Rules, 2026 on March 30, 2026, inviting public comments with a response window closing on April 14. This is a limited 15-day period for public input on proposed rules that will have major constitutional impacts. The brevity and timing of this opportunity demonstrate debatable commitment to stakeholder engagement and meaningful consultation by the drafting agency.
While MEITY describes the proposed amendments as "clarificatory and procedural nature," an analysis shows they will have substantive effects. Collectively, the amended language changes significantly how online speech will be regulated in India by providing the executive with more concentrated regulatory authority, limiting the required transparency of content enforcement, mandating greater retention of data without proportionality-based safeguards, and placing excessive compliance burden on intermediaries. Each of these changes has consequences beyond just changes in process and together, these changes collectively raise substantial concerns regarding compliance with Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Constitutional Baseline: Shreya Singhal and the Limits of Intermediary Liability
India’s Supreme Court decision in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 provides the foundation for intermediary liability, wherein the Court read down Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000, holding that intermediaries are required to act upon receiving actual knowledge only through a court order or a valid notification by the appropriate government authority. The Supreme Court’s decision intended to provide a constitutional protection to intermediaries from being subjected to informal, unverified executive pressure to take down content by requiring that any such order be subject to some level of legal objective credibility or threshold.
Rule 3(4) of the proposed amendments places that balance under significant strain. By requiring intermediaries to comply with advisories, directions, standard operating procedures, codes of practice, and guidelines issued by the Ministry — and tying non-compliance to the loss of safe harbour — the draft effectively lowers the constitutional threshold that Shreya Singhal was designed to maintain. Compliance obligations now potentially arise from instruments that carry no judicial sanction and no mandatory public disclosure.
Rule 3(4): Delegated Legislation or Executive Overreach
The rule-making power conferred on the Central Government under Section 87 of the IT Act is limited to carrying out the provisions of the Act. It does not authorise the creation of new substantive obligations. This principle has been consistently affirmed in Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641 and Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 399, where the Court held that delegated legislation must remain within the four corners of the parent statute.
Rule 3(4) tests those limits. It converts executive advisories into binding compliance instruments without a clear statutory foundation in either Section 79 or Section 87. Although the proposed rule requires that such instruments specify their legal basis, there is no requirement that they be published or made publicly accessible. This creates a framework in which legality risks becoming circular — instruments claimed to be lawful solely by reference to a provision that does not clearly authorise them, shielded from scrutiny by their own opacity. Justice Chandurkar’s judgment in Kunal Kamra v. Union of India identified precisely this defect in the Fact Check Unit amendment. Rule 3(4) replicates the structural problem in a broader form.
Compliance Pressure and the Logic of Over-Censorship
The practical consequence of Rule 3(4) lies not only in its legality but in how it reshapes incentive structures for platforms. An intermediary facing the permanent threat of safe harbour loss will not wait to assess the legal merit of each advisory. The rational calculation is to comply early, broadly, and without friction. Lawful content — particularly satire, political commentary, and journalism — becomes vulnerable not because it is unlawful, but because it presents regulatory risk.
This dynamic was visible on 18 March 2026, when stand-up comedian Pulkit Mani (@hunnywhoisfunny) found his satirical Instagram reel being restricted across India. The video had accumulated over 16.5 million views. Users encountered a notice citing Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. No reasons were publicly provided. No prior hearing was offered. The same night, several political parody and satire accounts were withheld on X.
Data Retention, Privacy, and the Proportionality Test
The amendments to Rules 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(h) extend data retention obligations by making them additional to requirements under any other law. The existing 180-day floor for retained user data — covering removed content, registration information, and associated records — becomes a minimum rather than a ceiling. No maximum is specified, and no proportionality requirement accompanies the extension.
This raises direct concerns under Article 21 as interpreted in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, which held that any state intrusion into privacy must satisfy the triple test of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Undefined retention periods, with no statutory ceiling and no requirement of purpose limitation, risk failing all three. The longer user data is held, including metadata, device information, and records of removed content, the greater the exposure to surveillance, unauthorised access, and use beyond the original justification.
Circumventing Judicial Scrutiny Through Procedural Redesign
The Bombay High Court, in its August 2021 order, stayed provisions of the IT Rules’ oversight mechanism as prima facie violative of Article 19(1)(a). The Madras High Court in T.M. Krishna v. Union of India affirmed that stay, cautioning that government-controlled media oversight risked undermining press independence. Both matters remain pending before the Delhi High Court.
The amendments to Rules 8(1) and 14 restructure the same oversight machinery through a modified procedural design. By extending the Inter-Departmental Committee’s jurisdiction to cover “matters” referred by the Ministry with no requirement of a complainant, no defined subject matter, and no guaranteed prior hearing, the proposed rules effectively reconstitute what courts found constitutionally suspect. Individual users posting news and current affairs content are now brought within reach of blocking mechanisms originally designed for institutional publishers.
Conclusion
As seen above, the Draft IT Rules 2026 are unable to meet the constitutional and judicial requirements to regulate free speech. What the proposed amendments construct is a durable system in which platforms self-censor under liability pressure, data is retained without proportionate justification, and content oversight expands through procedural adjustment rather than parliamentary legislation. Regulation of the digital public sphere is both legitimate and necessary. But it must be anchored in law, not in the quiet authority of executive advisories. The law must ultimately remain anchored in constitutional values, guided by the enduring principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.
The comment period closes on 14 April 2026.
Submissions may be sent to itrules.consultation@meity.gov.in.
References
- https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/03/30591fc6e322dcbcc9dae84a0f02e9e7.pdf
- https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/03/a71a21d35c107f2e528363d3eb17646a.pdf
- https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/02/550681ab908f8afb135b0ad42816a1c9.pdf
- https://neopolitico.com/india/government-blocks-viral-satirical-reel-impersonating-pm-modi-raising-fresh-questions-on-free-speech-and-digital-regulation/
- https://internetfreedom.in/sound-the-alarm-iffs-first-read-on-meitys-draft-it-rules-second-amendment-2026/
