#FactCheck- Viral Zipline Accident Video from Karnaprayag is AI-Generated, Claim is False
Executive Summary
A video is being shared on social media claiming that a female tourist from Delhi fell into a deep gorge during ziplining in Karnaprayag. In the viral video, a woman dressed in bright pink and yellow clothes is seen ziplining amidst high mountains, when suddenly the zipline wire breaks and she falls from a significant height into a deep gorge. Social media users are sharing this video, presenting it as a real incident. Research by the CyberPeace Research Wing revealed that the claim of a Delhi woman tourist's death during a zipline accident in Karnaprayag is baseless. The viral video is AI-generated.
Claim
According to the claim, this accident took place in Karnaprayag, Uttarakhand, where a female tourist from Delhi became a victim of this horrific mishap. Several social media users are claiming that the woman died in this accident.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/26108544868822432
Fact Check
To investigate the video viral as a zipline accident in Karnaprayag, we conducted a reverse search of its keyframes. During this, we found the video uploaded as a Short on a Pakistani YouTube channel, @Zoyaqueen-w2t, on June 2, 2026. Hashtags like '#funnyshorts' were used in the caption of this video. Scanning this account revealed that several other fictional videos related to similar zipline accidents have also been uploaded here. Apart from this, the video was also shared with funny hashtags in some social media posts from May 2026.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Gzha_J7Fqv0
Following this, searching with relevant keywords yielded no credible media reports regarding any such zipline accident in Karnaprayag, Uttarakhand, in recent times. Subsequently, we scanned the viral video of the alleged zipline accident using the AI detection tool 'Hive Moderation'. During the analysis, the tool classified the video as highly likely to be AI-generated, with a score of 99.2%.
Conclusion
From the evidence gathered in our research , it is clear that the claim regarding the death of a female tourist from Delhi during a zipline accident in Karnaprayag is baseless. The viral video is not of a real incident, but is AI-generated.
Related Blogs
Introduction
On June 2, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order called "Promoting Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security." The order tells federal agencies to improve cyber defences against AI-based threats and creates a system where AI companies can choose to let the government access powerful new models before they are released to the public. This happens as the U.S. and China are in a heated competition to lead the next generation of AI. While the order only affects the United States, its impact could reach the global AI industry, including India.
What Does the Executive Order Do?
The White House order focuses on three areas: First, it aims to upgrade government cyber security. Federal agencies must strengthen their information systems with AI-enabled defences within 30 days. Cyber Security and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) will issue new guidelines for civilian agencies, and an AI Cyber security Clearinghouse will be established for the government and private companies to share and resolve software vulnerabilities.
Second, the order introduces a voluntary pre-release review process for advanced AI models. Before a new model is publicly available, AI companies can give the government up to 30 days to evaluate it for cyber security risks. An earlier draft proposed a 90-day review period, but this was cut back due to feedback from the technology industry. The government will also create classified benchmarks to figure out which models qualify as a “covered frontier model” and are therefore subject to this review process.
Finally, the order emphasises criminal enforcement. It prioritises legal action against those who use AI tools to commit cybercrimes.
According to the White House, the aim is to promote AI innovation and security by collaborating with the private sector to modernise government and private information systems and protect them from external threats.
Why Does This Matter Globally?
- AI Is Now a National Security Issue Until recently, most governments viewed AI as an economic or scientific issue. This order officially changes that for the United States, placing advanced AI alongside other sensitive technologies that need government oversight before deployment. When the world's largest military makes this change, other governments pay attention. Countries allied with or partnering with the U.S. will likely revisit their own AI governance frameworks in the months ahead.
- Two Competing Models for the World The U.S. and EU represent two different approaches to AI governance. The EU AI Act lays down strict rules, is focused on ethics, and requires heavy compliance. The US approach is lighter on ethics, promoting voluntary cooperation, prioritising security, and encouraging innovation. Countries developing their own AI policies will either continue to align with one of these models or take ideas from both. The Atlantic Council has pointed out that if the U.S. model is successful, it could influence international security standards for AI development, even without formal global agreements.
- The China Factor Trump initially delayed signing the order, worried it would slow down American companies and give China an edge. The final version avoids mandatory licensing requirements but clearly indicates that the U.S. aims to lead, not only in building AI but also in securing it. China is likely to respond by speeding up its own evaluation systems, creating another global framework.
What Could This Mean for India?
India has taken a careful, non-mandatory approach to AI governance. MeitY's India AI Governance Guidelines, issued in November 2025, are based on principles and are not binding. India's AI Safety Institute has been announced but is not fully operational. Efforts to create binding regulation have been seen in actions like the Private Member's Bill, the AI Ethics and Accountability Bill, 2025, introduced in the Lok Sabha. This bill suggests mandatory reviews for high-risk AI systems but has not been passed yet. It's important to note that groups like the AI Governance Expert Group (AIGEG) and the Technology and Policy Expert Committee (TPEC) serve only in an advisory role; they do not have legislative power. As a result, nothing binding has been implemented so far. The Trump order puts additional pressure on India to pass measurable, binding AI-security-related measures. As AI use increases in banking, healthcare, telecommunications, and government services and frontier AI models continue to evolve without global oversight, stronger security evaluation methods are becoming necessary, especially in critical sectors.
Recent events prove this need. In June 2026, a Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack hit the CBSE's On-Screen Marking portal. It saw 1.5 million requests in two minutes and over one lakh unauthorised file access attempts targeting a system used by millions of students. Similar attacks have impacted AIIMS Delhi and other public digital infrastructure. As AI tools make these attacks easier to carry out, security testing before deployment can no longer be seen as optional.
For Indian AI companies aiming at global markets, the U.S. framework is also important for business. Standards that are set voluntarily in Washington often become necessary for international partnerships and contracts.
Conclusion
Trump's AI cyber security order signals a shift. A government that resisted regulating AI has now recognised that powerful models need oversight before they reach the public. Its immediate impact affects U.S. agencies and developers. However, the broader message is that advanced AI is a national security concern. This will influence policy conversations around the world. For India, the priority is to develop its own security evaluation capacity now, rather than waiting to adopt frameworks created for other contexts.
References
- White House Executive Order, "Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security," June 2, 2026
- Federal Register — Executive Order Publication, June 5, 2026
- Council on Foreign Relations — Assessing Trump's Executive Order on AI Oversight, June 4, 2026
- Atlantic Council — Reading Between the Lines of Trump's New Executive Order on AI, June 3, 2026
- Times of India — Donald Trump Passes AI Cyber security Order
- MeitY India AI Governance Guidelines, November 2025
- AI Ethics and Accountability Bill, 2025 — Explained
- NPR — Trump Signs EO Seeking Early Government Access to Powerful AI Models
Executive Summary:
A video from an India TV news show related to the Assam elections is going viral on social media. In the clip, anchor Meenakshi Joshi is allegedly seen claiming that there is a rift between the BJP and the RSS in Assam. The video further suggests that RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat wrote a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi stating that former Congress members have taken over the BJP, and that RSS volunteers would not work for the party in Assam. However, a research by the CyberPeace found that the viral video is edited and misleading. The original video contains no such claims.
Claim:
A social media user Ajit Singh shared the video on X with the caption:“The core idea of today’s BJP is to capture power by any means. We have been saying this for long, and now even RSS has accepted that BJP in Assam has been taken over by Congress mindset.”
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, we searched relevant keywords about the alleged letter by RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. However, we found no credible media reports supporting this claim. We then checked the YouTube channel of India TV but could not find the viral clip there. During the search, we did find a similar video from Meenakshi Joshi’s show. In the beginning of that video, the portion seen in the viral clip appears.
In the original video, the anchor is discussing the announcement of election dates in five states. There is no mention of any rift between the BJP and RSS in Assam.
Conclusion:
The viral India TV video claiming a rift between the BJP and RSS in Assam is edited and misleading. The original broadcast was about election dates in five states and did not include any such claims.
Introduction
In an extensive order of 144 pages passed on May 29, 2026, Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court inter alia affirmed the right of an acquitted or discharged person to reinstate their digital identity. In a batch of more than 30 petitions relating to acquittals, family dispute cases, quashed criminal cases, and parties to proceedings, the petitioners argued that court documents and accusations, having lost their purpose, have kept occupying the search engine, leading to infringement of dignity, privacy, and career and personal life of these individuals. Citing Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as its foundation, the court affirmed that a right to life and personal liberty also includes a right to privacy and to leave behind failed proceedings and adopted wide de-indexing policies, including, where necessary, global de-indexing, thereby ushering in India's "right to be forgotten."
The Constitutional Argument: Article 21 and the Digital Self
The constitutional basis of the right to be forgotten in India rests on the landmark nine-judge bench ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled privacy to be a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and stated informational privacy is a facet of personal liberty. The Supreme Court observed that individuals have an interest in determining how the information concerning them is gathered, disseminated, and accessed.
Building upon this precedent, Justice Sachin Datta held that the right to be forgotten flows naturally from the constitutional guarantee of informational privacy. The judgment represents one of the most significant judicial applications of the Puttaswamy principles, particularly in the context of search engines and online judicial records. Noting the absence of a fully operational statutory framework despite the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, the court exercised its constitutional jurisdiction to protect individuals from enduring digital harm caused by continued public accessibility of outdated or irrelevant personal information.
INDIAN APPLICATION OF THE GLOBAL PRECEDENT
Tracing back the genesis of this right, it lies in the worldwide jurisdiction on privacy, especially the European Court of Justice's landmark ruling of 2014 in Google Spain SL v. AEPD and Mario Costeja Gonzlez, where it ruled that it is within one's power to ask search engines to de-list links that show personal information that is found to be outdated or irrelevant. This led to a legislated right to erasure by the inclusion of Article 17 in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), creating the right throughout the EU. India, on the other hand, saw a slow process of evolution when it came to this right. The Madras High Court acknowledged the right to be forgotten partially in 2021 when it directed a petitioner's name to be deleted from an acquittal judgment, which was affirmed by a Division Bench in 2024. Nevertheless, the above were merely judgments confined to the facts of a particular case. However, the decision of the Delhi High Court dated May 2026 proves to be the benchmark in laying down a comprehensive constitutional framework under Article 21 with guiding principles on when a request for de-linking would be entertained and, if warranted, would be extended throughout the world.
Anatomy of the Framework by the Delhi High Court
While Justice Sachin Datta’s ruling recognizes the right to be forgotten, its actual import lies in devising an operative framework. The Court noted that it would maintain judicial records indefinitely in keeping with open justice principles, but an individual's name may not act as a perennial search key with respect to private entities' search engines. Thus, courts will be allowed to de-index judicial records (except their legal reasoning, findings, and ratio decidendi, which will continue to be accessible) from the names appearing therein from search engines and legal databases. While personally identifying data will be obfuscated, the underlying legal reasoning will not be rendered unusable, as access to unredacted records will continue to be available to courts, parties, and authorities. Such orders are also possible to be effective internationally, rendering avoidance difficult. However, the right cannot be absolute, as it is largely unavailable for convicted individuals (particularly if convicted of offenses against women or children or crimes of breach of trust). Courts must pass a proportionality test in considering the balance between privacy and the public right to know. By stating that masking information has an impact on discoverability, not access, it achieves a reconciliation between informational privacy and open justice so that acquitted accused are not held hostage to past accusations forever in the online age.
The Road to Implementation
However, the judgment presents a thick knot of practical issues, the solution to which may take considerable time to untangle. How will petitions for masking orders be filed by those who need them? Will there be a prescribed form? How will legal database systems such as Indian Kanoon and SCC Online operationalize name-based de-indexing while keeping their vast archives usable for lawyers? More significantly, what kind of legal force will global directions for de-indexing hold over those search engines whose main servers lie outside of Indian territory?
This is not to say the judgment isn't important. It simply presents a predictable, almost mundane set of issues that all ambitious pronouncements on constitutional rights face when translated into the world of administration issues that came up even when the EU was first struggling with enforcing the GDPR in 2018. India now has its framework, and the details of its implementation will undoubtedly come through future rounds of litigation, guidelines, and perhaps even legislation.
What remains abundantly clear, though, is the message conveyed by the Delhi High Court that digital permanency is a crime, especially when it causes the most incriminating of a person's legal actions to follow them perpetually, even long after they have been given due process by the system. As Justice Datta eloquently put it, privacy in the digital age is 'not about secrecy but about an individual's control over the dissemination of personal information.' "Now an element of constitutional law in India, the verdict is a declaration that will resonate long beyond the thirty-odd petitions that called it into being.
Conclusion
The ultimate finding of the 2026 right-to-be-forgotten judgment in Delhi High Court reinforces human dignity in the digital era. The Court has acknowledged the need for acquittals and exonerations to have meaningful implications offline, ensuring an individual is not eternally punished through online searches for alleged wrongdoing. Building on the right to privacy established by K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, informational privacy now stands at the core of constitutional guarantees, and India joins the nations establishing precedents to balance openness with dignity.
