#FactCheck -Old Video of Former CEC Rajiv Kumar Misleadingly Linked to Recent West Bengal Election Results
Executive Summary
Following the results of the recent West Bengal elections, a video of former Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar has gone viral on social media. In the clip, Kumar is seen questioning television news channels over their election-result coverage and alleged early “trends” before the actual counting process begins. In the viral video, Rajiv Kumar can be heard saying, “When counting begins, channels start showing trends from 8:05 AM itself, which is nonsense. The first round of counting starts only at 8:30 AM. We have evidence that leads were being shown before that. Is it possible that these early trends are shown just to justify exit polls?”The video is being widely shared with the claim that Kumar made these remarks after the recently concluded West Bengal Assembly elections Research conducted by CyberPeace Research Wing found that a 2024 video of former Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar is being misleadingly shared as a recent statement made after the West Bengal election results.
Claim
An Instagram user shared the viral clip suggesting that the former Election Commissioner made these comments in the context of the latest West Bengal poll results.
Fact Check
Using relevant keyword searches, we traced the original source of the clip to an official post shared by the Election Commission of Indiaon Facebook on October 15, 2024. The video was part of a press conference announcing the Assembly election schedule for Maharashtra and Jharkhand.
We also found the complete live-streamed press conference on the official YouTube channel of the Election Commission.
During the press conference, around the 26:45-minute mark, an ANI journalist referred to discrepancies between exit polls and actual Lok Sabha election results and asked whether such situations fuel doubts over EVMs among the public. Responding to the question at around 30:27 minutes, Rajiv Kumar spoke about the need for self-regulation in electronic media and concerns over premature “trends” shown during counting day. He said that exit polls often create public expectations despite lacking a clear scientific basis and questioned why TV channels begin displaying leads even before the first official counting round starts.
Conclusion
The viral claim is misleading. The video of former Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar is not related to the recent West Bengal election results. The clip is from an October 15, 2024 press conference held to announce the Maharashtra and Jharkhand Assembly election schedule and is now being falsely shared in a misleading context after the West Bengal polls.
Related Blogs
Somewhere in a compliance meeting right now, someone is saying "we have eighteen months, we're fine." That sentence is doing the same thing a snooze button does at 6 a.m.: technically buying time, while quietly making the actual wake up call worse. India's data protection law just started its countdown, and the 18 months everyone keeps citing is not a grace period to procrastinate through. It is closer to a runway before takeoff. Runways exist for one purpose: building up speed until the plane has no choice but to leave the ground. Standing still on one is not a strategy.
What actually got notified, and when
On 13 November 2025, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology notified the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, giving operational shape to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act that Parliament had passed back in August 2023. Alongside the Rules themselves, MeitY issued a separate Enforcement Notification setting out exactly when different provisions kick in, and a further notification establishing the Data Protection Board of India, headquartered in the National Capital Region with four members. The final Rules followed a genuinely deliberative process, MeitY had floated draft Rules in January 2025 for public consultation and received 6,915 individual inputs from startups, industry bodies, civil society groups, and citizens before finalising the version now in force. The headline structural decision, and the one causing the most confusion in boardrooms, is that the Rules do not commence all at once. They commence in three distinct phases spread across eighteen months, and different obligations become legally binding at each stage.
The phased timeline, laid out plainly
That third date, 13 May 2027, is the one that matters most for the vast majority of organisations, since it is where the bulk of actual operational obligations, the parts that touch product design, customer facing notices, and breach response, become enforceable. Legal commentary tracking the rollout has been consistent that this is described as a hard deadline with no grace period expected once it arrives, since the Data Protection Board is already operational and can begin receiving complaints well before Phase 3 obligations formally take effect.
Why "later" is a genuinely expensive plan
The financial stakes attached to Phase 3 non-compliance are not modest. The Schedule to the DPDP Act sets fixed penalty ceilings rather than turnover linked fines, which sounds gentler than Europe's GDPR model until you look at the actual numbers. Failure to implement reasonable security safeguards that results in a data breach can draw a penalty of up to 250 crore rupees per instance, the single highest tier in the Schedule. Failing to notify the Board or affected individuals after a breach occurs can draw up to 200 crore rupees, as can non-compliance with the Act's specific protections for children's data. Because these are assessed per instance rather than as a single capped exposure, a single incident that trips more than one obligation, say, inadequate safeguards that also delay breach notification, can compound into penalty exposure running into hundreds of crores from one event. All penalties collected go to the Consolidated Fund of India rather than to affected individuals directly, meaning the deterrent is aimed squarely at organisational behaviour, not compensation.
The part everyone keeps underestimating: this is not just a legal department problem
Perhaps the most consequential shift buried inside the DPDP framework is who actually has to own it. Reading the Rules as a checklist for the legal or privacy team alone misses how far the obligations actually reach. Building a compliant consent lifecycle touches product design. Security safeguards touch cybersecurity and IT infrastructure directly. Retention and deletion logic touches data governance and engineering. Third party risk review touches procurement. Breach preparedness touches internal audit and incident response. And increasingly, as organisations deploy AI systems that process personal data, AI governance enters the picture too, since a model trained or fine tuned on personal data inherits the same DPDP obligations as any other processing activity.
That cross functional reality is where most readiness programmes currently fall short. Treating DPDP compliance as a documentation exercise, updating a privacy policy PDF and calling it done, produces the appearance of compliance without the operational substance a Data Protection Board investigation would actually test. A breach response plan that exists only on paper and has never been rehearsed will not hold up against the 72 hour data principal notification window the Rules impose once Phase 3 lands. A consent mechanism bolted onto a website without corresponding backend logic to honour withdrawal requests will not satisfy an actual audit.
What a serious readiness posture looks like right now
Organisations that are ahead of this curve are already treating the eighteen month window as three overlapping workstreams rather than one deadline to hit at the end.
- The first is discovery: mapping what personal data exists, where it flows, who owns each system that touches it, and why it is collected in the first place, since compliance is structurally impossible without first knowing what you are protecting. This stage typically surfaces uncomfortable findings, shadow data sets nobody formally owns, vendor integrations nobody fully mapped, legacy systems still holding data well past any reasonable retention justification.
- The second is build: standing up the actual mechanisms, consent flows that can genuinely honour a withdrawal request end to end, rights request handling that does not depend on a single overworked employee checking an inbox, retention and deletion logic wired into the systems themselves rather than described only in a policy document, and security controls proportionate to the sensitivity of what is being protected.
- The third is proof: generating the internal evidence, audit trails, documented decisions, tested response procedures, that demonstrates governance was real rather than retrofitted after the fact. A Data Protection Board investigation, when it eventually happens, will not be satisfied by a well written policy; it will look for evidence that the policy was actually operational.
The actual question worth asking
The right question was never "when does DPDP become enforceable." Phase 1 already answered that; the law is live, and the Data Protection Board already exists and can act. The better question, the one worth taking into any leadership review between now and May 2027, is simpler and considerably less comfortable: will the organisation actually be ready when each phase's obligations become operational, or will readiness be assembled in a scramble once the deadline stops being theoretical. 18 months sounds long right up until the week it does not, and by the time Phase 3 lands, "we'll get to it" will no longer be a sentence any organisation gets to finish.
References
- Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, notified 13 November 2025. Press Information Bureau, "Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 Notified," 14 November 2025. https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/specificdocs/documents/2025/nov/doc20251117695301.pdf
- Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co, "Enforcement of the DPDP Act and notification of the DPDP rules." https://www.amsshardul.com/insight/enforcement-of-the-dpdp-act-and-notification-of-the-dpdp-rules/
- S&R Associates, "India's Digital Personal Data Protection Regime Takes Effect." https://www.snrlaw.in/indias-digital-personal-data-protection-regime-takes-effect/
- Khurana & Khurana, "MeitY Notifies Rules Operationalising The DPDP Framework." https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/update-meity-notifies-rules-operationalising-the-dpdp-framework-in-india
- Exchange4media, "DPDP Act 2025: Penalties for violations can reach Rs 250 crore." https://www.exchange4media.com/digital-news/dpdp-act-2025-penalties-for-confirmed-violations-can-reach-rs-250-crore-149360.html
- Seclore, "DPDP Rules 2025: India's Complete Compliance Guide." https://www.seclore.com/fundamentals/dpdp-rules-2025-compliance-guide/
Executive Summary:
A video of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is going viral across multiple social media platforms. In the clip, PM Modi is purportedly heard praising Christianity and stating that only Jesus Christ can lead people to heaven.Several users are sharing and commenting on the video, believing it to be genuine. The CyberPeace researched the viral claim and found it to be false. The circulating video has been created using artificial intelligence (AI).
Claim:
On January 29, 2026, a Facebook user named ‘Khaju Damor’ posted the viral video of PM Modi. The post gained traction, with many users sharing and commenting on it as if it were authentic. (Links and archived versions provided)
Fact Check:
As part of our research , we first closely examined the viral video. Upon careful observation, several inconsistencies were noticed. The Prime Minister’s facial expressions and hand movements appeared unnatural. The lip-sync and overall visual presentation also raised suspicions about the clip being digitally manipulated. To verify this further, we analyzed the video using the AI detection tool Hive Moderation. The tool’s analysis indicated a 99% probability that the video was AI-generated.
To independently confirm the findings, we also ran the clip through another detection platform, Undetectable.ai. Its analysis likewise indicated a very high likelihood that the video was created using artificial intelligence.
Conclusion:
Our research confirms that the viral video of Prime Minister Narendra Modi praising Christianity and making the alleged statement about heaven is fake. The clip has been generated using AI tools and does not depict a real statement made by the Prime Minister.
Executive Summary:
A viral image circulating on social media claims it to be a natural optical illusion from Epirus, Greece. However, upon fact-checking, it was found that the image is an AI-generated artwork created by Iranian artist Hamidreza Edalatnia using the Stable Diffusion AI tool. CyberPeace Research Team found it through reverse image search and analysis with an AI content detection tool named HIVE Detection, which indicated a 100% likelihood of AI generation. The claim of the image being a natural phenomenon from Epirus, Greece, is false, as no evidence of such optical illusions in the region was found.
Claims:
The viral image circulating on social media depicts a natural optical illusion from Epirus, Greece. Users share on X (formerly known as Twitter), YouTube Video, and Facebook. It’s spreading very fast across Social Media.
Similar Posts:
Fact Check:
Upon receiving the Posts, the CyberPeace Research Team first checked for any Synthetic Media detection, and the Hive AI Detection tool found it to be 100% AI generated, which is proof that the Image is AI Generated. Then, we checked for the source of the image and did a reverse image search for it. We landed on similar Posts from where an Instagram account is linked, and the account of similar visuals was made by the creator named hamidreza.edalatnia. The account we landed posted a photo of similar types of visuals.
We searched for the viral image in his account, and it was confirmed that the viral image was created by this person.
The Photo was posted on 10th December, 2023 and he mentioned using AI Stable Diffusion the image was generated . Hence, the Claim made in the Viral image of the optical illusion from Epirus, Greece is Misleading.
Conclusion:
The image claiming to show a natural optical illusion in Epirus, Greece, is not genuine, and it's False. It is an artificial artwork created by Hamidreza Edalatnia, an artist from Iran, using the artificial intelligence tool Stable Diffusion. Hence the claim is false.
