#FactCheck -Viral Claim That Yogi Adityanath Urged People Not to Watch Shah Rukh Khan’s Films Is Misleading
Executive Summary
A video circulating on social media allegedly shows Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath criticizing Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan and asking people not to watch his films. Users sharing the clip claim that these statements are recent. CyberPeace’s research has found the claim to be misleading. research revealed that the video is from 2015, long before Yogi Adityanath became the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. At that time, he was serving as a Member of Parliament from Gorakhpur.
Claim
On January 13, 2026, a Facebook user shared the video with the caption: "A clear message from the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Param Pujya Mahant Yogi Adityanath, urging people not to watch Shah Rukh Khan’s movie. Share this message widely, send it to all groups you are part of, and inform the youth in your family."
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, keyframes from the viral video were extracted and reverse-searched using Google Lens. The same video was found in a Facebook post dated March 28, 2022, where it was shared with the caption: "Baba Ji’s message to not watch Shah Rukh Khan’s ‘Pathaan’ movie."
Further research traced the video to Aaj Tak’s website, which reported on November 4, 2015, that then-BJP MP Yogi Adityanath criticized Shah Rukh Khan, comparing his language to that of terrorist Hafiz Saeed, stating that there was no difference in their statements.
A Live Hindustan report from the same date confirmed that Yogi Adityanath had strongly reacted to Shah Rukh Khan’s comments on rising intolerance in India and Hafiz Saeed’s invitation for him to stay in Pakistan. The reports make it clear that Yogi Adityanath criticized Shah Rukh Khan in 2015 by highlighting the similarity between his statements and those of Hafiz Saeed. At the same time, Shah Rukh Khan had highlighted growing intolerance in the country, citing incidents where filmmakers, scientists, and authors were returning awards, describing it as a sign of “deep intolerance” in India.
Conclusion:
Our research found that the statement attributed to Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath circulating on social media is not recent. The video dates back to 2015, a time when Yogi Adityanath was not yet the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.
Related Blogs
Introduction
In October 2024, when the comedian's phone rang, and the voice at the other end claimed to be a FedEx representative, comedian Ankita Shrivastav thought it was a simple issue of misdelivery or customer grievance. The caller said that a parcel in her name was detected being shipped to Iraq and contained illegal drugs. The phone was soon handed over to what appeared to be police personnel in uniform, and she was told that she was under investigation and placed under a so-called digital arrest. For seven hours, she was ordered not to disconnect the call, leave her home, or contact anyone. Through fear, authority, constant surveillance, and psychological pressure, the scammers coerced her into transferring ₹9 lakh in the FedEx parcel scam.
This is the anatomy of one of India's fastest-spreading cyber frauds, and it is costing victims everything.
The Modus Operandi
The most concerning part is the sheer consistency of the script. It usually starts with an unsolicited call, made on a spoofed number that could show up as a legitimate courier or government agency. The caller acts as a FedEx/DTDC executive and claims that a parcel dispatched in the victim’s name to either Taiwan, Iraq, Thailand, or Cambodia has been intercepted and contains drugs, forged passports, or fake credit cards.
As the victim tries to establish that they have no knowledge of this, the scammers smoothly shift the conversation to someone must have impersonated the victim’s Aadhaar number. The victim is now both accused and victim and, therefore, more easily manipulated.
The call is "transferred" to a fake NCB officer or cybercrime cell official. The victim sees a person dressed in uniform seated behind a mock police station set with official-looking documents scattered on the desk. A fake arrest warrant that carries the victim’s real name, address, and Aadhaar number, presumably acquired from stolen databases, is presented to the victim.
This is what the scammers call the "digital arrest." The victim is commanded not to move from the camera, nor leave the house, nor speak to anybody. Scammers take turns monitoring the call, who eventually ask the victim to transfer cash into a "secure government account" for RBI or CBI verification.
The Psychology of Fear
"The art of scamming is psychological rather than technological," journalist and author Soumya Gupta opines. The scammers use two deeply primal fears: the fear of the police and the fear of social disgrace. Their victims are manipulated into believing that ending the call is tantamount to pleading guilty and that confessing to friends and family will only exacerbate their current circumstances. The victims' isolation is deliberately induced and combined with fatigue and disorientation.
"From a young age, we are taught to be scared of the police and not to question them,” comedian Ankita Shrivastav, who fell victim in October 2024, explains that childhood condition silenced the alarm bells ringing in my head. Shrivastav admitted that her fear of damage to her reputation made her more susceptible to the scam.
The Human Cost
The FedEx parcel scam is targeting everyone, irrespective of age, income, background, or education. Victims of this scam show the kind of different people they are: A 70-year-old veteran journalist was psychologically tortured for eight days in Bangalore, losing 1.2 crores, whereas a 61-year-old retired executive of a multinational was video watched for almost a fortnight in Bangalore, losing 9.14 crores, and additionally, a 25-year-old woman lost 10 lakhs through a video call scam in Coimbatore.
Such a varied mix of victims in such different cases suggests how hard it is to stereotype the ones being swindled: there can be individuals of different age groups ranging from 25 to 70 years old, both educated and non-educated.
Why the Scam Is Spreading?
This FedEx parcel scam is a result of a highly industrialised, sophisticated cybercrime system. The National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal records over 45,000 complaints tagged as specifically 'courier-impersonation fraud' in 2024 alone, where a 1,200-crore loss was registered in that category.
This scam is powered by stolen Personal Identifiable Information (PII), illegally gathered by scammers through compromised e-commerce stores and rogue registry sites. This data enables the scammers to personalise and tailor the conversation to each individual to make it more believable. Furthermore, fake arrest warrants can be produced within minutes using official-looking templates, and the scammers utilise AI voice cloning and deep-fake videos of government officials. Vast networks of call centres (some based out of India and some overseas, including scam compounds in Cambodia and Myanmar) operate this scam with teams working in shifts. Money is quickly laundered into accounts of 'mule' account holders and quickly into cryptocurrency wallets. Post 24 hours of receiving the funds, recovering money is nearly impossible.
What You Must Do If You Get This Call?
One should always remember: no genuine government official will ever carry out an arrest over a video call. There is no "digital arrest," and this process has absolutely no basis in Indian law. If you do get such a call:
- Cut the call immediately: The scammers have you where they want you if you stay on the line. It is not illegal to hang up on them.
- Do not transfer money under threat or compulsion: No authentic investigative process ever requires you to move money to a "secure government account."
- Never share: your Aadhaar details, bank details, OTP, or passwords with anyone you speak to on the phone.
- Do not provide video statements: Whatever you say can be recorded and used to blackmail you further.
- Verify information independently: Call FedEx India (1800-22-6161) or any courier company using numbers from their official website, never numbers provided to you by the caller.
- Lock: your UPI, cards and Aadhaar biometrics instantly if you feel you have shared information with them.
- Call: 1930 within an hour of money transfer. The rate of recovery is 40-60% within one hour and less than 5% after 24 hours.
- File a complaint at cybercrime.gov.in and an FIR at your local cyber police station.
- Tell someone: Isolation is the scammer's greatest tool. Breaking it breaks the scam
Conclusion
The FedEx parcel scam is also based on a very basic human reaction: the fear of being accused, the urge to obey any figure that represents authority, and the desire to avoid public humiliation. It is designed to skip any part of the brain that may be used to rationalise anything. The only real prevention is to realise, before answering, that the call is never about the FedEx parcel, never from FedEx.
References
- https://www.aol.com/news/fedex-says-parcel-drugs-scam-220400617.html
- https://righttoinformation.wiki/fedex-courier-scam-recovery
- https://www.thenewsminute.com/karnataka/beware-of-fedex-scam-bengaluru-journalist-loses-rs-12-crore
- https://www.digit.in/news/general/coimbatore-woman-loses-rs-10-lakh-in-shocking-courier-scam-heres-what-happened.html
- https://www.deccanherald.com/india/fedex-courier-scam-a-tale-of-terror-trickery-and-deceit-2804802
- https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/bengaluru/fedex-frauds-con-scared-retiree-of-rs-9-crore-2810169
- https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/bengaluru/fedex-frauds-hold-woman-in-digital-captivity-for-8-days-2848168
- https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/bengaluru/how-to-fight-fedex-courier-scam-2836566
- https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/fedex-scam-lawyer-blackmailed-424883-2024-04-09
- https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/files/2CrimeinIndia2024-VolumeII.pdf
- https://www.newsmobile.in/fraud-and-scam/indian-comedian-falls-victim-to-fedex-digital-arrest-scam-loses-rs-9-lakh/
Executive Summary
Misleading claims related to an incident in Delhi are being widely circulated on social media. Several posts allege that an Indian Army brigadier and his son were assaulted while returning from a “dance club party.” The posts further claim that the attack was triggered by remarks related to “Operation Sindoor.” However, research by the CyberPeace found that these claims are completely false and fabricated.
Claim
On social media platform X, some users (including @ManipurPost5) shared posts claiming that an Indian Army brigadier and his son were attacked after returning from a dance club. The posts also alleged that the altercation escalated after someone mocked “Operation Sindoor.”
Fact check
To verify the claim, we conducted keyword searches on Google and found a report published by Republic World on April 14, 2026, which included visuals similar to those being circulated.
According to the report, the victims were identified as Brigadier Parminder Singh Arora, a serving Indian Army officer, and his son Tejas Arora. At the time of the incident, they were taking a walk near their residence after dinner. Reports state that they noticed a group of individuals consuming alcohol inside a parked car in a public place and objected to it. This led to an argument, which later escalated into a violent assault. Around 7–8 individuals allegedly attacked the brigadier and his son, with the son sustaining more serious injuries. Questions have also been raised about the role of police personnel present at the scene. Following the complaint, a case was registered, one police constable was suspended, and two accused individuals have been arrested so far. The vehicle involved has also been seized. Further verification led us to another report published by India Today on April 14, 2026, which corroborated the same details of the incident.
Conclusion
The viral claim is misleading and entirely false.The incident has no connection to any “dance club party” or to “Operation Sindoor.” In reality, the altercation began after the brigadier objected to public drinking near his residence.
There has been a struggle to create legal frameworks that can define where free speech ends and harmful misinformation begins, specifically in democratic societies where the right to free expression is a fundamental value. Platforms like YouTube, Wikipedia, and Facebook have gained a huge consumer base by focusing on hosting user-generated content. This content includes anything a visitor puts on a website or social media pages.
The legal and ethical landscape surrounding misinformation is dependent on creating a fine balance between freedom of speech and expression while protecting public interests, such as truthfulness and social stability. This blog is focused on examining the legal risks of misinformation, specifically user-generated content, and the accountability of platforms in moderating and addressing it.
The Rise of Misinformation and Platform Dynamics
Misinformation content is amplified by using algorithmic recommendations and social sharing mechanisms. The intent of spreading false information is closely interwoven with the assessment of user data to identify target groups necessary to place targeted political advertising. The disseminators of fake news have benefited from social networks to reach more people, and from the technology that enables faster distribution and can make it more difficult to distinguish fake from hard news.
Multiple challenges emerge that are unique to social media platforms regulating misinformation while balancing freedom of speech and expression and user engagement. The scale at which content is created and published, the different regulatory standards, and moderating misinformation without infringing on freedom of expression complicate moderation policies and practices.
The impacts of misinformation on social, political, and economic consequences, influencing public opinion, electoral outcomes, and market behaviours underscore the urgent need for effective regulation, as the consequences of inaction can be profound and far-reaching.
Legal Frameworks and Evolving Accountability Standards
Safe harbour principles allow for the functioning of a free, open and borderless internet. This principle is embodied under the US Communications Decency Act and the Information Technology Act in Sections 230 and 79 respectively. They play a pivotal role in facilitating the growth and development of the Internet. The legal framework governing misinformation around the world is still in nascent stages. Section 230 of the CDA protects platforms from legal liability relating to harmful content posted on their sites by third parties. It further allows platforms to police their sites for harmful content and protects them from liability if they choose not to.
By granting exemptions to intermediaries, these safe harbour provisions help nurture an online environment that fosters free speech and enables users to freely express themselves without arbitrary intrusions.
A shift in regulations has been observed in recent times. An example is the enactment of the Digital Services Act of 2022 in the European Union. The Act requires companies having at least 45 million monthly users to create systems to control the spread of misinformation, hate speech and terrorist propaganda, among other things. If not followed through, they risk penalties of up to 6% of the global annual revenue or even a ban in EU countries.
Challenges and Risks for Platforms
There are multiple challenges and risks faced by platforms that surround user-generated misinformation.
- Moderating user-generated misinformation is a big challenge, primarily because of the quantity of data in question and the speed at which it is generated. It further leads to legal liabilities, operational costs and reputational risks.
- Platforms can face potential backlash, both in instances of over-moderation or under-moderation. It can be considered as censorship, often overburdening. It can also be considered as insufficient governance in cases where the level of moderation is not protecting the privacy rights of users.
- Another challenge is more in the technical realm, including the limitations of AI and algorithmic moderation in detecting nuanced misinformation. It holds out to the need for human oversight to sift through the misinformation that is created by AI-generated content.
Policy Approaches: Tackling Misinformation through Accountability and Future Outlook
Regulatory approaches to misinformation each present distinct strengths and weaknesses. Government-led regulation establishes clear standards but may risk censorship, while self-regulation offers flexibility yet often lacks accountability. The Indian framework, including the IT Act and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023, aims to enhance data-sharing oversight and strengthen accountability. Establishing clear definitions of misinformation and fostering collaborative oversight involving government and independent bodies can balance platform autonomy with transparency. Additionally, promoting international collaborations and innovative AI moderation solutions is essential for effectively addressing misinformation, especially given its cross-border nature and the evolving expectations of users in today’s digital landscape.
Conclusion
A balance between protecting free speech and safeguarding public interest is needed to navigate the legal risks of user-generated misinformation poses. As digital platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Wikipedia continue to host vast amounts of user content, accountability measures are essential to mitigate the harms of misinformation. Establishing clear definitions and collaborative oversight can enhance transparency and build public trust. Furthermore, embracing innovative moderation technologies and fostering international partnerships will be vital in addressing this cross-border challenge. As we advance, the commitment to creating a responsible digital environment must remain a priority to ensure the integrity of information in our increasingly interconnected world.
References
- https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/should-digital-platform-owners-be-held-liable-for-user-generated-content/article68609693.ece
- https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/should-digital-platform-owners-be-held-liable-for-user-generated-content/article68609693.ece
- https://hbr.org/2021/08/its-time-to-update-section-230
- https://www.cnbctv18.com/information-technology/deepfakes-digital-india-act-safe-harbour-protection-information-technology-act-sajan-poovayya-19255261.htm
