#FactCheck -Misleading Social Media Claim Targets University Over Viral Video
Executive Summary
A video circulating on social media shows a woman using abusive language in front of a camera. Users sharing the clip claim that the woman is a professor at Galgotias University and that the video exposes her alleged reality. However, an research by CyberPeace found the claim to be misleading. The probe revealed that the woman seen in the viral video has no connection with Galgotias University and is not a professor there.Fact-checking further showed that the video is not recent but around seven years old. The woman featured in the clip was identified as Shubhrastha, who is a political strategist by profession.
Claim:
A user on X (formerly Twitter) shared the viral video on February 18, 2026, claiming: “A ‘class in abuse studies’ at Galgotias University? An obscene video of a professor teaching ethics has gone viral. Another shameful chapter has been added to the list of controversies surrounding Galgotias University.” The post further alleged that after falsely claiming a Chinese robot as its own, the university’s “Culture and Ethics” faculty member was seen publicly using abusive language in the viral clip. The post link and its archived version are provided below:
Fact Check:
To verify the authenticity of the viral claim, we extracted key frames from the video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the research , we found the same video uploaded on the Indian Spectator’s YouTube channel on June 9, 2018
The video was also found on another YouTube channel, where it had been uploaded on June 12, 2018.
Conclusion
The research clearly establishes that the woman seen in the viral video has no association with Galgotias University and is not a professor there. The clip is also not recent but approximately seven years old. The woman in the video was identified as Shubhrastha, a political strategist.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
A video is being widely shared on social media with the claim that a terrorist attack took place at the ISKCON Temple in Patna. The posts claim that terrorists opened indiscriminate fire at security personnel deployed at the main gate, carried out bomb blasts, and took two priests hostage. CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found that the claim of a terrorist attack on the ISKCON Temple in Patna is false. The viral video is not from an actual attack but from a security mock drill conducted at the temple.
Claim
A Facebook post shared a video claiming: "Three suspected terrorists entered the ISKCON Temple! Security guards were shot at the gate. Three suspected terrorists carrying modern weapons and hand grenades suddenly entered the Patna ISKCON Temple in the morning and killed the security personnel deployed at the gate. They then carried out a bomb blast, creating panic inside the temple campus."
The Facebook post archive can be accessed here. Similar posts can be found here and here.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/2501959103601059
Factcheck
To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search. During the search, we found reports from several credible media organisations clarifying that the video was not related to any real terrorist attack but was from a mock drill conducted to assess the preparedness of security forces. According to a Dainik Bhaskar report published on July 29, a security mock drill was conducted at the ISKCON Temple in Patna. During the exercise, a simulated emergency situation was created in which police personnel were assigned the role of suspected terrorists and were made to enter the temple premises. The drill involved personnel from Kotwali, Jakkanpur and Buddha Colony police stations, along with magistrates and around 50 police personnel who reached the spot and took charge of the situation. An ATS team was also immediately called during the exercise.
The report also quoted Patna ASP (Law and Order) Krishna Murari Prasad, who clarified that the exercise was organised to strengthen the temple’s security arrangements.
A Navbharat Times report published on July 29 also stated that, as part of the planned mock drill, three Bihar Police personnel carrying advanced weapons and hand grenades were sent inside the ISKCON Temple premises. Security agencies responded quickly, cordoned off the area, and the ATS team took control of the personnel and mock explosives, successfully completing the exercise.
During our research , we also found a post dated July 29, 2026, on the official Facebook page of the Home Department, Government of Bihar, regarding the mock drill.
The post stated that the Bihar ATS successfully conducted a security mock drill at the ISKCON Temple premises in Patna. The objective of the exercise was to test coordination between security agencies and stakeholders, quick response capabilities, and the effective implementation of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) during a possible terrorist attack or emergency situation. The post further mentioned that the drill included a rapid response to suspicious activity, area sanitisation, safe evacuation of devotees, search for suspects, and other necessary security measures.
https://www.facebook.com/HomeDeptBihar/posts/1492697179568423?ref=embed_post
Conclusion
The evidence gathered during the research confirms that the viral claim is false. The video being shared with the claim of a terrorist attack on Patna’s ISKCON Temple actually shows a security mock drill conducted by the authorities to assess emergency preparedness.
A word rooted in medical terminology keeps getting mistaken for a word rooted in technology, and that confusion is not just semantic. On 6 August 2026, it sat at the heart of a case where police in Uttar Pradesh reportedly treated the absence of WhatsApp chats, call recordings, and social media material as grounds to disbelieve a sexual assault complaint altogether, before the Allahabad High Court intervened. For an organisation working at the intersection of digital literacy and public safety, this case is less a story about a legal term and more a case study in how assumptions about digital evidence, when left unchecked, can become a barrier to justice rather than a tool for it. "Digital" here refers to a finger, not a device, and the gap between what police expected and what the law actually required is exactly where this case becomes instructive. Digital rape has nothing to do with the internet. Digit simply means finger, and the word describes non-consensual penetration by a finger, thumb, toe, or similar body part or object. That basic clarification matters because the same investigating officers who were expected to know the law also appear to have leaned on a mistaken evidentiary standard, one where a complaint without a digital trail was treated as a complaint without merit. The judgment that followed says as much about how the criminal justice system treats sexual assault complaints, and how it treats digital evidence, as it does about legal terminology.
The case, in brief
The matter is Arpit Gupta v. State of U.P. and 2 others, 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 571, neutral citation 2026:AHC:168404-DB, decided by a Division Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena. Arpit Gupta, the owner of a Noida based real estate firm, Parit Associates (OPC) Private Limited, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash an FIR registered against him at Wave City police station, Ghaziabad, alleging rape, sexual harassment, and criminal intimidation. The complainant, a former employee of Gupta's company, alleged sustained workplace sexual harassment culminating in an act legally categorised as digital penetration, along with subsequent threats and intimidation. She resigned in April 2026. What followed procedurally is where the case becomes significant: Gupta filed a separate extortion complaint against her, she was arrested and later released on bail, and only after that sequence did she attempt to formally report the sexual assault, a report the police initially declined to register.
What followed complicates the picture considerably, and is central to why the case reached the High Court at all. On 14 April 2026, Gupta filed his own FIR against the complainant alleging extortion, claiming she had demanded 10 crore rupees from him. She was arrested in connection with that case and secured bail on 21 May 2026. After her release, she attempted to register her own complaint of sexual assault, but police at Wave City station declined to register an FIR. A written complaint dated 7 July 2026 addressed directly to the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, also produced no result. The police investigating officer's report, dated 16 July 2026, went further still, terming her allegations false and characterising the sexual assault complaint as a retaliatory counter-blast to Gupta's extortion case, citing in particular the absence of supporting electronic material such as WhatsApp chats, call recordings, or social media evidence. Only after she approached a Magistrate under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, did the FIR finally get registered, by Magisterial order dated 20 July 2026.
The legal terminology: what "digital rape" actually means under BNS
Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which replaced Section 375 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, defines rape. Clause (b) of Section 63 extends that definition to cover non-penile penetrative acts, specifically insertion, to any extent, of any object or body part other than the penis into specified parts of a woman's body, done without her consent or against her will, subject to the circumstances of absent consent set out in the section. Digital penetration, meaning penetration by finger or thumb, falls squarely within this clause. There is no standalone offence in the BNS titled "digital rape"; the term is a widely used medico-legal shorthand, not a separate statutory category, and the offence itself is prosecuted and punished as rape under Section 64 BNS, which prescribes the punishment provisions. In this particular case, the FIR reportedly also invoked Sections 74, 75(2), and 76 BNS, provisions dealing with assault or use of criminal force with intent to outrage modesty, sexual harassment by a person in a position of authority, and related offences, alongside Section 351(3) BNS concerning criminal intimidation.
CyberPeace View
This is where the case circles back to the concern raised at the outset. The most instructive part of this judgment for the wider public may not be the definition of digital rape at all, but the police's original insistence on WhatsApp chats and call recordings before treating the complaint as credible. That reflex, a growing habit of associating the credibility of any complaint with the existence of a corresponding digital trail, reflects a wider and increasingly common misunderstanding about how evidence actually works in criminal law. Not every offence leaves an electronic footprint, and sexual assault, by its nature, frequently occurs without any accompanying digital record at all. Treating the absence of a chat log or a recording as evidence of falsehood inverts the legal presumption entirely, and risks turning digital literacy gaps within law enforcement into a structural barrier for genuine complainants who have no messages to produce because none were ever exchanged. As India's criminal justice system increasingly interacts with digital evidence, this case is a useful reminder that digital forensics should supplement an investigation, never gatekeep its starting point.
There is a genuinely technology rooted counterpart to this terminology confusion worth flagging, and it sits at the opposite end of the spectrum from where this case began. While "digital rape" has nothing to do with computers, "virtual rape" very much does, and it is an emerging harm India's legal framework is still catching up to. In January 2024, British police opened what was reported as the first investigation of its kind after a minor's avatar was allegedly gang assaulted by other avatars on Meta's metaverse platform, and similar incidents, avatars groped or sexually harassed within minutes of entering platforms like Horizon Worlds, have been documented repeatedly since, including a widely reported case involving psychotherapist Nina Jane Patel as far back as 2021. These incidents involve no physical contact whatsoever, yet researchers and legal scholars studying virtual reality note that immersive VR environments are specifically engineered to create a sense of embodiment, where the brain processes an avatar's violation as something closer to a real bodily experience than a typical online interaction, producing genuine trauma responses in victims. India's legal position here remains only partially settled. The POCSO Act's coverage of non-contact sexual abuse of minors likely extends to avatar based assaults on children, but adult victims of virtual sexual violence in India currently have no clearly dedicated statutory provision, leaving prosecutors to stretch existing harassment and outraging modesty provisions, originally drafted for a physical world, onto a form of harm the legislature has not yet explicitly addressed. As metaverse and VR platforms grow their user base in India, that gap is one worth closing before, rather than after, a case forces the question, much as this one forced the question of how police ought to treat digital evidence.
Conclusion
Two lessons run through this judgment. First, that the law's protection of bodily autonomy extends well beyond narrow, traditional definitions of penetration, a principle Section 63(b) BNS makes explicit. Second, that a complainant reporting a cognizable offence cannot be made to investigate her own case before the police will even open a file. FIR registration is not conviction, and conviction requires investigation, evidence, and trial to follow. What this case asks of the system is simpler than any of that: register the complaint, then do the work of finding out what happened.
References
- https://www.barandbench.com/news/digital-rape-allahabad-hc-orders-inquiry-against-senior-ghaziabad-police-officers-for-not-filing-fir
- https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-hc-police-cant-refuse-fir-sexual-complaint-non-production-evidence-545374
Executive Summary
Nepal witnessed severe devastation after floods struck the country on August 26, 2026. Amid this, a video showing a bridge being swept away by floodwaters is being widely shared on social media. Some users are sharing the video claiming that it shows scenes of destruction caused by the floods in Nepal.A research done by the Research Wing of the CyberPeace found that the video being shared with the claim of flood devastation in Nepal is AI-generated. However, it is true that the floods in Nepal have claimed hundreds of lives.
Claim
A user on X shared the video with the caption: “Scenes of devastation in Nepal after the disaster.”
https://www.instagram.com/reels/Dch-EmYNUwz/
https://perma.cc/5VY5-ZFCN?type=standard
Fact Check
We closely examined the video showing the bridge being swept away. A person can be seen standing on top of a truck, which appears unnatural in such a situation. Moreover, even as the bridge collapses, the people on it do not appear to fall directly into the water. These observations led us to suspect that the video was likely AI-generated.
We scanned the viral video using the AI detection tool ‘WasItAI’, which identified it as 99 percent AI-generated.
Meanwhile, another AI detection tool, Sightengine, also identified the video as 99 percent AI-generated.
Conclusion:
A video being shared with the claim that it shows devastation caused by floods in Nepal is actually from the shooting of an Indonesian TV serial, while another viral video is AI-generated.
