#FactCheck -Old Image from Iraq Falsely Linked to Alleged Attack on Iran’s Water Treatment Plant

Introduction

In the labyrinthine corridors of the digital age, where information zips across the globe with the ferocity of a tempest, the truth often finds itself ensnared in a web of deception. It is within this intricate tapestry of reality and falsehood that we find ourselves examining two distinct yet equally compelling cases of misinformation, each a testament to the pervasive challenges that beset our interconnected world.

Case 1: The Deceptive Video: Originating in Malaysia, Misattributed to Indian Railway Development

A misleading video claiming to showcase Indian railway construction has been debunked as footage from Malaysia's East Coast Rail Link (ECRL). Fact-checking efforts by India TV traced the video's origin to Malaysia, revealing deceptive captions in Tamil and Hindi. The video was initially posted on Twitter on January 9, 2024, announcing the commencement of track-laying for Malaysia's East Coast Railway. Further investigation reveals the ECRL as a joint venture between Malaysia and China, involving the laying of tracks along the east coast, challenging assertions of Indian railway development. The ECRL's track-laying initiative, initiated in December 2023, is part of China's Belt and Road initiative, covering 665 kilometers across states like Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang, and Selangor, with a completion target set for 2025.

The video in question, a digital chameleon, had its origins not in the bustling landscapes of India but within the verdant bounds of Malaysia. Specifically, it was a scene captured from the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) project, a monumental joint venture between Malaysia and China, unfurling across 665 kilometers of Malaysian terrain. This ambitious endeavor, part of the grand Belt and Road initiative, is a testament to the collaborative spirit that defines our era, with tracks stretching from Kelantan to Selangor, and a completion horizon set for the year 2025.

The unveiling of this grand project was graced by none other than Malaysia’s King Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah, in Pahang, underscoring the strategic alliance with China and the infrastructural significance of the ECRL. Yet, despite the clarity of its origins, the video found itself cloaked in a narrative of Indian development, a falsehood that spread like wildfire across the digital savannah.

Through the meticulous application of keyframe analysis and reverse image searches, the truth was laid bare. Reports from reputable sources such as the Associated Press and the Global Times, featuring the very same machinery, corroborated the video's true lineage. This revelation not only highlighted the ECRL's geopolitical import but also served as a clarion call for the critical role of fact-checking in an era where misinformation proliferates with reckless abandon.

Case 2: Kerala's Incident: Investigating Fake Narratives

Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has registered 53 cases related to spreading fake narratives on social media to incite communal sentiments following the blasts at a Christian religious gathering in October 2023. Vijayan said cases have been registered against online news portals, editors, and Malayalam television channels. The state police chief has issued directions to monitor social media to stop fake news spread and take appropriate actions.

In a different corner of the world, the serene backdrop of Kerala was shattered by an event that would ripple through the fabric of its society. The Kalamassery blast, a tragic occurrence at a Christian religious gathering, claimed the lives of eight individuals and left over fifty wounded. In the wake of this calamity, a man named Dominic Martin surrendered, claiming responsibility for the heinous act.

Yet, as the investigation unfolded, a different kind of violence emerged—one that was waged not with explosives but with words. A barrage of fake narratives began to circulate through social media, igniting communal tensions and distorting the narrative of the incident. The Kerala Chief Minister, Pinarayi Vijayan, informed the Assembly that 53 cases had been registered across the state, targeting individuals and entities that had fanned the flames of discord through their digital utterances.

The Kerala police, vigilant guardians of truth, embarked on a digital crusade to quell the spread of these communally instigative messages. With a particular concentration of cases in Malappuram district, the authorities worked tirelessly to dismantle the network of fake profiles that propagated religious hatred. Social media platforms were directed to assist in this endeavor, revealing the IP addresses of the culprits and enabling the cyber cell divisions to take decisive action.

In the aftermath of the blasts, the Chief Minister and the state police chief ordered special instructions to monitor social media platforms for content that could spark communal uproar. Cyber patrolling became the order of the day, as a 20-member probe team was constituted to  deeply investigate the incident. 

Conclusion

These two cases, disparate in their nature and geography, converge on a singular point: the fragility of truth in the digital age. They highlight the imperative for vigilance and the pursuit of accuracy in a world where misinformation can spread like wildfire. As we navigate this intricate cyberscape, it is imperative to be mindful of the power of fact-checking and the importance of media literacy, for they are the light that guides us through the fog of falsehoods to the shores of veracity. 

These narratives are not merely stories of deception thwarted; they are a call to action, a reminder of our collective responsibility to safeguard the integrity of our shared reality. Let us, therefore, remain steadfast in our quest for the truth, for it is only through such diligence that we can hope to preserve the sanctity of our discourse and the cohesion of our societies.

References:

1. https://www.indiatvnews.com/fact-check/fact-check-misleading-video-claims-malaysian-rail-project-indian-truth-ecrl-india-railway-development-pm-modi-2024-01-29-914282
2. https://sahilonline.org/kalamasserry-blast-53-cases-registered-across-kerala-for-spreading-fake-news

‍

Introduction

India & Bangladesh have adopted proactive approaches, focusing on advancing cyber capacity building in the region. Bangladeshi and Indian cybersecurity experts have emphasised the importance of continuous technology training to protect the digital space from growing cyber-attacks and threats. They call for greater collaboration to share knowledge and expertise in cyber resilience, network vulnerability, and cyber risk assessment. The Cyber-Maitree 2023 event held in Dhaka aimed to enrich and build capacity to counter cyber-attacks and threats. The senior director of India's Computer Emergency Response Team acknowledged the growing dependence on cyberspace and the need for increased preparedness as critical infrastructures, energy systems, banks, and utilities are connected to the internet. Recently, Bangladesh Cyber ​​Security Summit 2024, organised by Grameenphone, was held in Dhaka on March 5th, 2024. Such collaborative dialogues between the countries serve as a shining example of cooperation between the governments of Bangladesh and India, serving as a platform for knowledge sharing, capacity building, and international cooperation in cyber security.

Cyber Maitree held in 2023

In 2023, India and Bangladesh held  'Cyber Maitree 2023', an initiative hosted by the ICT Division of the Bangladeshi Government, to address cybersecurity challenges in a rapidly globalising world characterised by digitisation. The event, which translates to "Cyber Friendship," was an interface for cybersecurity experts and aspirants from both nations, creating an avenue for extensive training, practical exercises, and a dynamic exchange of information. We need to emphasise the importance of bolstering digital safety as both nations grapple with the rapid digitisation of the world.

India-Bangladesh joint efforts aim to fortify cyber resilience, pinpoint potential network vulnerabilities, bolster rigorous risk assessments, and illuminate the landscape of cyber threats. It encompasses various sectors, including cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, ICT, and IT-driven human resource expansion. The growing camaraderie between India and Bangladesh has been evident through strategic engagements, such as the India-Bangladesh Startup Bridge and the establishment of 12 High Tech Parks in Bangladesh.

Highlights of the India-Bangladesh MoUs for Cyber Security Cooperation

In 2017, India and Bangladesh signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) focused on cyber security cooperation. 

In 2022, Both nations crafted a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), highlighting collaboration in spheres such as e-governance, e-public service delivery, research, and development. A separate agreement was also inked focusing on mutual information sharing pertaining to cyber-attacks and incidents. The first MoU aims to provide a framework for training Bangladesh Railway employees at Indian Railways' training institutes, including field visits. The Indian Railways will coordinate with officials from the Ministry of Railways, Government of Bangladesh to improve training facilities in Bangladesh. The second MoU focuses on collaboration in IT systems, for the Bangladesh Railway. The Ministry of Railway, Government of India, will offer IT solutions for passenger ticketing, freight operations, train inquiry systems, asset management digitisation, HR and finance infrastructure. The MoUs aim to strengthen the friendship bond between India and Bangladesh and promote friendly cooperation in the railway sector.

Way Ahead

Zunaid Ahmed Palak, State Minister for Posts, Telecom and ICT, Bangladesh, has announced that Bangladesh and India will collaborate to ensure the safety of the cyber world. The two countries are expected to sign a final agreement within the next three to six months. He stressed the importance of attracting investments in the postal, telecommunication, and IT sectors. He also highlighted the strong ties between Bangladesh and India. He also announced that 12 high-tech parks will be constructed in Bangladesh with an Indian Line of Credit, starting operation by 2025. He further referred to the Indian Cyber Emergency Response Team (CERT), and said "We are very much enthusiastic in fighting against the cyber attacks and crimes as the team is now working with us". 

Bangladesh Cyber ​​Security Summit 2024

The Bangladesh Cyber Security Summit 2024, organised by Grameenphone, was held in Dhaka on 5th March 2024, focusing on cybersecurity issues and opportunities, fostering collaboration between government, private organisations, industry experts, and sponsors investing in Bangladesh's digital future.

Conclusion 

India and Bangladesh share a common vision for a secure digital future, focusing on cybersecurity collaboration to safeguard shared aspirations and empower nations to thrive in the digital age. We must emphasise the need to fortify digital defenses, leveraging expertise, innovation, and collaboration to secure interconnected futures. Collaborative relations in Information and Communication Technology and Cyber Security will strengthen digital defense and establish cyber resilience. 

References:

• https://caribbeannewsglobal.com/bangladesh-and-india-call-for-more-cyber-security-training/?amp=1
• https://www.indianewsnetwork.com/en/20231005/bangladesh-and-india-strengthen-ties-through-cyber-maitree-2023
• https://www.bssnews.net/news-flash/150763
• https://digibanglatech.news/english/bangladesh-english/125439/
• https://www.mea.gov.in/Portal/LegalTreatiesDoc/BG17B3024.pdf
• https://digibanglatech.news/english/bangladesh-english/125439/
• https://www.tbsnews.net/tech/ict/bangladesh-india-work-together-cyber-security-palak-712182

‍

Introduction
‍

The rise of artificial intelligence has transformed how individuals search for information, buy and compare products online. Unlike the traditional search engines like Google  that presents the user with a set of links and directs users to websites, AI-powered systems provide synthesised answers and recommendations which means we don't have to click through every link to find what we are looking for, we simply have to ask an LLM and it provides recommendations based on our needs expressed through prompt. This development has raised important legal and commercial questions, one such question was addressed in the judgement of Indiamart Inter Mesh Limited v. Open AI Inc. and Others (2026 SCC OnLine Cal 5738) decided by HMJ Ravi Krishan Kapur of Calcutta High court on 20 May 2026. If an AI platform becomes a primary source of information, can a business demand inclusion in its responses? Is it a legal injury if the LLM omits a business? More fundamentally, how do the existing laws classify technologies that not only process information, but also generate new content? These were the questions that came before Calcutta High Court. Although the dispute arose from Indiamart’s complaint regarding visibility on ChatGPT search, the judgement explored beyond the disagreement between two private entities.

‍

The Dispute
‍

IndiaMart is one of India’s largest electronic business-to-business marketplaces since 1996, serving millions of buyers and sellers across India. They also have registered trademarks and their entire business depends on visibility on the internet considering the digitalisation of the market. Open AI launched ChatGPT search in October 2024, which is a feature that supplements AI responses with links to relevant web sources. Indiamart alleged that ChatGPT was not displaying links to their online platform in the same way that it displayed links to other competing services or individual sellers. A major grievance raised by Indiamart was that ChatGPT allegedly bypassed IndiaMart market listings by directing users to sellers’ individual websites while continuing to provide platform level links for other competing platforms. Hence, they contended that this practice diverted users away from their platform and negatively affected their business interests. The company argued that such exclusion amounted to discriminatory treatment and resulted in economic harm, diluted its trademarks and amounted to disparagement. They alleged that it violated their rights under article 14, 19, 21 under the constitution and rights under IT Act and IT Rules also. When IndiaMart sought an explanation from OpenAI, the company stated that its decision was influenced by the inclusion of IndiaMart in the United States Trade Representative (USTR) Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy 2024, a U.S. government report that identifies online and physical marketplaces alleged to facilitate intellectual property infringements. IndiaMart challenged this justification, arguing that the USTR report has no statutory or binding force in India. It further alleged selective discrimination, pointing out that several other platforms featured on the same USTR list including DHGate, Pinduoduo, Shopee, and Taobao continued to remain accessible through ChatGPT-generated responses. Consequently, IndiaMart approached the Calcutta High Court seeking interim relief directing ChatGPT to display and provide access to IndiaMart links in its responses.

‍

ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT

‍

IndiaMart's contentions: They argued that ChatGPT, because its search feature, performs the role of an "intermediary" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act and is therefore required to comply with the obligations imposed under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Relying on Rule 3(1)(n), IndiaMart argued that an intermediary cannot engage in discriminatory treatment of platforms or selectively restrict access to information. IndiaMart further maintained that users have a right to access information relating to its platform and that the omission of IndiaMart links from ChatGPT's responses violated this interest. They alleged violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, along with the broader principle of a user's "right to know", to argue that OpenAI owed an obligation to display IndiaMart listings in response to relevant queries. In addition, IndiaMart alleged that the exclusion of its links caused commercial harm, diluted its trademarks, amounted to disparagement, and constituted an unfair trade practice that adversely affected its business and reputation.

OpenAI's contentions: OpenAI asserted that IndiaMart had no legally enforceable ‘Right to visibility’ on ChatGPT. They argued that neither contract, statute, nor constitutional law imposed any obligation on OpenAI to display, prioritise, or recommend IndiaMart links in response to user queries. In the absence of any recognised legal right, there could be no actionable injury and therefore no valid cause of action. OpenAI also challenged the classification of ChatGPT as an "intermediary" under the Information Technology Act, 2000. According to OpenAI, ChatGPT does not merely host, transmit, or facilitate access to third-party content but also generates responses through its large language model (LLM) and therefore functions more closely as an "originator" than an intermediary. Consequently, the obligations applicable to intermediaries under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, including those relied upon by IndiaMart, were inapplicable. With respect to the USTR Notorious Markets List, OpenAI submitted that its reliance on the report formed part of its internal risk-management and business policies. Such decisions, it argued, were matters of private commercial judgment and not ordinarily subject to judicial review. OpenAI further pointed out that IndiaMart had also previously blocked ChatGPT from accessing and crawling its website that weakened the company's demand for greater visibility within ChatGPT-generated responses.

Court’s decision: The court rejected Indiamart's claim that they were entitled to be displayed in ChatGPT searches. The court emphasised the autonomy of private businesses, the court held that the right to carry on trade and business is "inviolable" and that no law can compel one private entity to operate their platform for the benefit of another, which is based on foundational economic philosophy of laissez faire. Unless there is a contractual, statutory or constitutional obligation, a platform has no duty to the other platform to promote or advance their economic interest. Applying this principle, the court found no such duty or “vested legal right” that entitled IndiaMart’s visibility on ChatGPT. The court reasoned that even if users possess the ‘right to know’, Indiamart could not convert that interest into an enforceable claim under article 19(1)(g) or other legal provision. The court looked at the dispute as one arising from commercial disadvantage rather than violation of any legally protected right. Although the reduced visibility may have had economic consequences, economic harm does not by itself create a cause of action.

The court also took into consideration whether ChatGPT should be classified as an intermediary under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 or as an originator under Section 2(1)(za). This was an important distinction, because the intermediaries can claim safe harbour protection under section 79 of the IT act, but the originators cannot. The court expressed a preliminary view that ChatGPT is generative capabilities, place it closer to an originator than an intermediary because, unlike conventional search engines, which identify and rank existing information, Generative AI systems, analyse the data and produce new output based on algorithms, which is in response to the user’s prompt. The Court also referenced the NITI Aayog National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (pages 7 to 12) to support its observations that ChatGPT does not merely store, host or transmit information, it can produce essays, research material, code, creative writing, and other forms of content that did not previously exist in that exact form, hence extending beyond the conventional understanding of an intermediary. The court also recognised that it is a vexed issue and remains unsettled because AI systems operate in response to users instructions and do not function independently, which is why the court refrained from providing a definitive classification and acknowledged that the question may ultimately require legislative clarification as well.

In addition to this, the Court took the view that the IndiaMart’s grievances did not amount to an Intellectual property dispute, as they found no trademark infringement or dilution because any reference to the "IndiaMart" mark was merely descriptive and did not constitute commercial use "in the course of trade" under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act. IndiaMart also hadn’t demonstrated any false or misleading use of its trademark.

Similarly, the Court found that claims of disparagement, trade libel, and injurious falsehood were unsustainable because such claims require the publication of a false statement that harms reputation and since ChatGPT had not published any derogatory statement about IndiaMart, the mere omission of links could not amount to disparagement or libel. The Court relied on Tech Plus Media v. Jyoti Janda, that allegations of unfairness or copyright infringement must be supported by specific pleadings and evidence.

Beyond the immediate dispute, the judgment shed light on the growing difficulty of applying legal categories created for an earlier internet era to generative AI systems. The Information Technology Act was enacted at a time when internet regulation focused primarily on websites, service providers, and electronic communications and therefore existing classifications may not adequately address the hybrid nature of contemporary AI technologies. The Court acknowledged OpenAI's concern that granting IndiaMart's request could trigger floodgates of litigation on similar claims from businesses dissatisfied with AI-generated visibility, however, it clarified that such concerns cannot outweigh genuine legal claims or fundamental rights. The Court suggested that legislative intervention may eventually be necessary.

‍

Conclusion
‍

This judgement not only addressed the visibility issue in AI generated responses, but also whether visibility itself can become a legally protected interest in AI-driven searches? As more and more users rely on AI generated output for their preference rather than traditional search engine output, the power to decide what information is displayed and what is not will eventually become economically significant. The Calcutta High Court through this judgement declined to create any such right through judicial interventions and also highlighted that the existing legal framework is not adequately equipped to address the novel challenges posed by generative AI.

‍(This blog is based on the judgment in Indiamart Inter Mesh Limited v. Open AI Inc. and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 5738, decided on May 20, 2026 by the Calcutta High Court, and related reporting by LiveLaw and SCC Times.)

‍

References
‍

• https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/calcutta-high-court/no-right-to-visibility-exists-on-private-ai-platforms-calcutta-high-court-refuses-to-direct-chatgpt-to-display-indiamart-links-536891
• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/06/03/chatgpt-intermediary-originator-it-act-calcutta-high-court/
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198449710/

‍