#FactCheck- Old CCTV Video Falsely Shared as Killing of LeT’s Amir Hamza

Introduction

‍

In January 2026, the Basic Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and the Establishment of a Foundation for Trustworthiness came into effect in South Korea, establishing one of the first national AI laws in the world. The bill, enacted by the National Assembly of Korea in December 2024 and implemented from January 22, 2026, aims to strike a balance between the rapid advancement of technology and clear safeguards against risks, as well as transparency, accountability, and responsible AI use. It puts Seoul and the European Union on the frontline of developing legal systems for artificial intelligence and indicates a long-term goal of becoming an AI power on the global stage.

‍

What the AI Basic Act Covers

‍

The AI Basic Act consists of 19 separate AI bills that are merged into a single piece of legislation that covers the lifecycle of AI, including research and development, deployment, and utilisation. It is very wide in its coverage: it refers to any AI system that influences the Korean market or users inside the country, irrespective of the country in which it is created. The law does not apply to national defence and security applications.

The law defines key concepts like artificial intelligence, generative AI, and high-impact AI and establishes the principles of ethical AI, safety, user rights, industry support, and national policy coordination. It also offers a legal foundation for the activities of the government to promote AI innovation without jeopardising the common good.

Fundamentally, the AI Basic Act is designed to establish a culture of trust between businesses and the government/citizens. It does not prohibit AI technologies and does not excessively limit innovation. Instead, it creates the framework of responsible development and economic growth.

‍

Guardrails for Safety and Accountability

‍

One of the defining features of the AI Basic Act is its risk-based approach. Rather than considering all AI systems as similar, it makes a distinction between ordinary and high-impact AI systems, the ones applied in sectors where the wrong or unsafe decision can have a major impact on the safety, rights, or critical infrastructure of the population. Some of them can be seen in healthcare, transportation, financial services, education, and public services.

The high-impact AI operators must integrate risk management plans, human controls, and surveillance systems. In critical decision-making situations, human control should be available at all times; that is, machines can help but not override human control where human safety or other human rights are involved.

The law enables the regulators to perform on-site checks, demand documentation, and conduct compliance investigations. Fines for breaches may go up to 30 million Korean won (approximately 21,000 US dollars). It has a one-year period of transition that is based on guidance but not enforcement, thus allowing companies time to implement compliance measures before imposing fines.

These requirements contribute to enhancing accountability by defining who is accountable for the safety outcomes. The law in South Korea is placed in the ecosystem, as opposed to the methods in which industry self-governance alone is utilised. 

‍

Transparency and Labelling Requirements

‍

The AI Basic Act is based on transparency. The legislation ensures that users are notified before an AI system is operating, particularly with the generation of AI outputs that could be confused with human-created material. As an example, AI-generated text, images, video, or audio that may be difficult to distinguish between reality and fake must have obvious labels or watermarks to allow users to understand the source of the content.

The necessity to label is meant to fight misinformation, misleading activities, and unintended influence on the perception of the people. It is based on international anxiety regarding AI-generated content, such as deepfakes, manipulated media, and misleading online advertisements that have already been addressed separately in policy by South Korea, as well as discussions of data governance.

The transparency is also applied to the process of decision-making in AI systems. Developers and operators should be able to give explicit information about the way in which high-impact systems make their conclusions so that those who are victims of automated decisions can seek meaningful explanations. Although specific explainability criteria are in the process of being developed, the law grounds the principle that AI cannot act behind the scenes in situations where crucial decisions are being made.

‍

Data Privacy and User Protection

‍

The AI governance practice in South Korea is complementary to its current data protection laws, the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), which is broadly regarded as equivalent to major international data protection regulations like the GDPR in regard to personal data laws. The AI Basic Act provides an explanation as to how the data can be gathered, processed, and utilised within AI systems with regard to privacy rights, particularly in areas of high impact.

The law does not supersede the personal data protection policies, but it sets certain conditions on how AI developers must address the data to be utilised in training, testing, and running AIs. Operators will be required to document their data workflows and demonstrate how they guard the privacy of their users, including by transparency and consent mechanisms where necessary. This can assist in ensuring that the information that is utilised in AI functions is regulated by definite norms, and it is more difficult to avoid privacy requirements in the name of innovation.

‍

Accountability and Governance Infrastructure

‍

The AI Basic Act establishes a national policy framework of AI governance. The National Artificial Intelligence Strategy Committee, chaired by the President, is at the top and proposes the overall AI policy and aligns it with national objectives. The organisations that would support this are the specialised organisations that deal with safety, risk assessment, and research and the policy centre that would analyse the effects of AI on society and assist in its adoption by the industry.

This institutional structure facilitates strategic guidance as well as operational control. It is through incorporating AI governance in the administration of the people, but not into the market forces, that South Korea wishes to have the ethical and societal concerns become part of the sectors and agencies.

‍

Promoting Innovation and Industrial Support

‍

Although the AI Basic Act does not disregard regulation, it is not a law of restrictions. It also offers legal justification for research and development, human capital, and the growth of the AI industry, with special consideration for startups and small and medium-sized businesses. The legislation promotes AI clusters, long-term funding programmes, and policies to bring foreign talent to the Korean AI ecosystem.

This bidimensional approach of compliance and support is indicative of the broader desire of Korea to become one of the leading AI powers in the world, along with the US and China. The government has pointed out that it will encourage trust by having clear and predictable rules that will attract investment and maintain innovation and not stifle it.

‍

What This Means Globally

‍

The AI Basic Act of South Korea is not only interesting in its contents but also in its timing. It is also among the first thorough AI legislations to come into force in the world, and it beats the gradual regulatory implementations in other parts of the globe, like the European Union. Its system incorporates a principle-based framework, transparency requirements, accountability regulations, and industrial support, which reflects a contrasting model to either pure prescriptive risk regulation or lax self-regulation models elsewhere.

Other critics, such as industry groups and civil society organisations, have suggested that some of the protections may be more explicit, in particular to those who are harmed by AI systems, or to establish high-impact categories. Nonetheless, the framework sets a benchmark upon which most nations will pay close attention when they establish their own AI regimes.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The AI Basic Act puts South Korea at the forefront of national AI regulation, including very well-developed guardrails that enforce transparency, ethical control, accountability, and data protection in addition to fostering innovation. It recognises that AI could lead to economic and social advantages, yet also actual risks, particularly when systems are opaque, autonomous, or widely implemented. South Korea has gone holistically in responsible AI governance by integrating human oversight, labelling requirements, risk management planning, and governance infrastructure into law to be emulated by other countries in the years to come.

Sources

‍

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/29/south-korea-world-first-ai-regulation-laws 
• https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/10/artificial-intelligence-and-the-labour-market-in-korea_af668423/68ab1a5a-en.pdf 
• https://asianintelligence.ai/south-korea 
• https://aibasicact.kr/ 
• https://aibusinessweekly.net/p/south-korea-ai-basic-act-takes-effect-jan22-2026 
• https://asiadaily.org/news/12112/ 

‍

Introduction

‍

In today's era, where the threat from the digital world is growing rapidly, good developments in the war against cybercrimes cannot be ignored when they do happen. The state, which was notorious for being one of the most notorious criminal states in the country concerning digital crimes, has brought about remarkable changes in the law and order situation in the country in the last few years. According to the most recent data released by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, Assam recorded only 408 cybercrimes in the year 2024, while the figure for the previous year was 909, which means a decline of over 55% in one year. But what is even more notable about the feat is the fact that, on the other hand, the country as a whole witnessed a rise of nearly 18% in the cybercrimes recorded. 

‍

 Assam's Cybercrime Journey

‍

To understand where Assam is today can only achieve this by understanding how far it has come. In 2021, it was ranked the 5^th highest state or union territory in India in the realm of cybercrime, with a staggering number of 4846 cases. The state kept the worrisome numbers continuing in the year 2022, as it ranked 9^th with 1,733 cases before sliding down to 13^th place in 2023 with 909 cases. However, the steep fall to a minuscule 408 cases in 2024 is an amazing narrative of how a state managed to completely eradicate the cybercrime infrastructure.

This is not a mere coincidence in statistics. This has proved to be a sustained, systematic operation by the law-enforcing agencies. Police sources say the decline is the result of consistent law enforcement action against cybercrime networks and the positive effect of awareness campaigns. Assam recorded 360 arrests under cybercrime-related offences and charge-sheeted 285 in the year 2024.

‍

The National Picture: A Troubling Contrast
‍

While the case of Assam is inspiring, the numbers on a pan-Indian level look bleak. India saw as many as 101,928 cybercrimes registered on its soil in the year 2024; a sharp rise from 2023, when 86,420 incidents had been reported. And it's not just in the number of cases that have seen an alarming rise; the economic implications are equally devastating. As many as 19.18 lakh complaints were lodged on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal in 2024. These complaints were an outcome of the financial losses to the tune of almost Rs 22,811.95 crore, according to a statement by the Home Ministry.

In 2024, the states that stood out at the top were Telangana (27,230), Karnataka (21,993), Uttar Pradesh (11,073), Maharashtra (9,922), and Bihar (6,380), among others. This clearly goes on to prove how the occurrences of cybercrime are not uniform across all states in the country due to various local and state-specific factors like the enforcement provided by state police forces, literacy levels of the general public, and the range of awareness campaigns carried out.

Even within Assam, the trend is not uniform, as almost every other Northeastern state has recorded a rise in cybercrimes this year, the figures being Arunachal Pradesh 24 to 78, Mizoram 31 to 50, Meghalaya 64 to 97, and Nagaland 2 to 14. It is only Tripura that saw a dip in reported cybercrimes, from 36 to 33. Considering these statistics, it becomes even more crucial to study and emulate Assam's success.
‍

The Drivers and Disrupters of Cybercrime
‍

It is in understanding how cybercrimes in Assam are committed that one might derive how these should be combatted. Of the 408 cases registered so far in 2024, 253 were registered for transmitting, or publishing, electronically, any obscene or sexually explicit material, and 115 cases were under computer-related offences. As for motive, they vary widely; 121 cases were registered out of revenge, 55 for fraud, 43 for extortion, and 42 for sexual exploitation. Sadly, out of 408 crimes reported so far in 2024, 196 victims are women, and 20 are children; in essence, the real impact is on society's most vulnerable.

This is a useful categorisation for the policymakers. It would not be beneficial if it were an all-encompassing strategy against cybercrimes when the motives and mechanisms behind them differ so widely. Customised campaigns educating women on cyberbullying, educating children on online security, and cautioning the public against online fraudulent schemes would be much more effective than general advice.

 On the national front, significant investments have been made by the central government for developing cybercrime-fighting infrastructure. Since the I4C was established in 2018, the launch of NCRP in 2019 provides a reporting and coordination framework against cybercrimes, and it is reported that over 5,489 crore have been saved by freezing illegal transactions, stemming from over 17.88 lakh complaints, through these platforms. Over 9.42 lakh SIM cards and 263,248 International Mobile Equipment Identities (IMEI) numbers have been blocked due to involvement in cybercrime.
‍

The Role of Awareness and Enforcement
‍

The biggest, and perhaps most transferable, lesson learned from Assam is the importance of both enforcement and awareness. Alone, neither proves useful: an enforcement operation without public knowledge leaves the public at risk for the next offence, while a purely informational approach gives criminals the license to proceed. Assam seems to have a more pragmatic approach; at least the statistics support this notion.

As the most persistent weakness, cyber hygiene is still a critical issue for India's cybersecurity. The core problem is the limited public knowledge on the importance of safer online practices, and it has been one of the primary hurdles to reducing crimes online; in instances where crimes were committed and reported, insufficient processes and infrastructure remained challenges in their investigation. Therefore, institutional investment in resources such as local police cyber cells and national coordinating agencies is an integral component to overcoming these challenges.z

‍

Conclusion
‍

By decreasing the rate of cybercrime in Assam by 55%, the successful combination of vigorous prosecution, constant pressure to uphold the law, and thorough public awareness campaigns has demonstrated a viable solution to ever-increasing online threats throughout India. Assam presents an attainable blueprint to diminish cybercrime, although the criminals of this evolving landscape cannot be constrained by individual state borders. To successfully achieve an e-economy that thrives on security and trust, India must adapt and expand the same law enforcement and awareness campaign strategies.

‍

References
‍

1. https://assamtribune.com/assam/assam-records-over-55-decline-in-cyber-crime-cases-in-2024-mha-1611895
   
   
2. https://ddnews.gov.in/en/cybercrime-complaints-cross-19-lakh-in-2024-97-drop-in-spoofed-calls-post-new-measures/
   
   
3. https://www.medianama.com/2025/08/223-india-cybercrime-500-percent-increase-2021-2024/
   
   
4. https://statista.com/topics/5054/cyber-crime-in-india‍
5. https://i4c.mha.gov.in
   

Executive Summary:

‍

Social media has been overwhelmed by a viral post that claims Indian Railways is beginning to install solar panels directly on railway tracks all over the country for renewable energy purposes. The claim also purports that India will become the world's first country to undertake such a green effort in railway systems. Our research involved extensive reverse image searching, keyword analysis, government website searches, and global media verification. We found the claim to be completely false. The viral photos and information are all incorrectly credited to India. The images are actually from a pilot project by a Swiss start-up called Sun-Ways.

Claim:

‍
According to a viral post on social media, Indian Railways has started an all-India initiative to install solar panels directly on railway tracks to generate renewable energy, limit power expenses, and make global history in environmentally sustainable rail operations.

Fact check:

‍
We did a reverse image search of the viral image and were soon directed to international media and technology blogs referencing a project named Sun-Ways, based in Switzerland. The images circulated on Indian social media were the exact ones from the Sun-Ways pilot project, whereby a removable system of solar panels is being installed between railway tracks in Switzerland to evaluate the possibility of generating energy from rail infrastructure.

‍

‍

We also thoroughly searched all the official Indian Railways websites, the Ministry of Railways news article, and credible Indian media. At no point did we locate anything mentioning Indian Railways engaging or planning something similar by installing solar panels on railway tracks themselves.

Indian Railways has been engaged in green energy initiatives beyond just solar panel installation on program rooftops, and also on railway land alongside tracks and on train coach roofs. However, Indian Railways have never installed solar panels on railway tracks in India. Meanwhile, we found a report of solar panel installations on the train launched on 14th July 2025, first solar-powered DEMU (diesel electrical multiple unit) train from the Safdarjung railway station in Delhi. The train will run from Sarai Rohilla in Delhi to Farukh Nagar in Haryana. A total of 16 solar panels, each producing 300 Wp, are fitted in six coaches. 

‍

‍

‍

‍

We also found multiple links to support our claim from various media links: Euro News, World Economy Forum, Institute of Mechanical Engineering, and  NDTV.   

‍

Conclusion:

‍

After extensive research conducted through several phases including examining facts and some technical facts, we can conclude that the claim that Indian Railways has installed solar panels on railway tracks is false. The concept and images originate from Sun-Ways, a Swiss company that was testing this concept in Switzerland, not India. 

Indian Railways continues to use renewable energy in a number of forms but has not put any solar panels on railway tracks. We want to highlight how important it is to fact-check viral content and other unverified content.

• Claim: India’s solar track project will help Indian Railways run entirely on renewable energy.‍
• Claimed On: Social Media‍
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

‍

‍