#FactCheck: AI-Generated Video Falsely Portrayed as Calf Mistaking Cow Poster for Mother

Wishing one another on birthdays and other occasions, sharing messages and wisdom, debating or discussing current issues, and announcing one's opinions and announcements over WhatsApp is more or less nothing new. These all are some of the latest versions of traditional communication without which our lives seem to be an un-escaped miss. Therefore, to state the obvious, WhatsApp is the platform that offers a group of good friends (as decided by the user) to communicate over – sharing information or ideas over a digital platform.

The practice of sharing allegations, images, videos, and hyperlinks through WhatsApp groups on an indiscriminate basis is becoming more and more prevalent and naturally raises the pertinent question: When does the ordinary digital conversation become actionable?

To answer this question, we need to differentiate between what is obnoxious, what is hurtful and what is illegal. There may be overlap between them, but they are not the same thing.

1. The Legal Distinction Between Offensive Expression and Unlawful Communication

The law does not impose on the individual an obligation to communicate respectfully. Criminal liability cannot be founded upon irritation or disapproval. It must be one that is defined by law.

Where a message simply contains info that is forbidden by law, a CRIMINAL threat or libellous imputations, matters are substantially different. Take the defamation provision of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Section 356, for instance. To arrive at the conclusion that a certain commentary constitutes defamation, one must look at the nature of the imputation which is attributed, the knowledge and intention concerning the reputational injury and the statutory exception as applicable. If the recipient finds the commentary offensive, it does not necessarily mean that it is defamatory. Similarly, the protection granted to criticism or fair remark cannot be interpreted as an unrestrained license to publish harmful accusations regardless of their veracity, rationale, or sincerity.

In addition, pornographic and sexually explicit material sent electronically is governed by a separate law. The Information Technology Act, 2000, has Sections 67 and 67A that relate to the publication or distribution of pornographic or sexually explicit material, respectively. Section 67B relates to certain kinds of sexually explicit content involving minors. These provisions are not just different in wording but also in material substance.

In short, there are different regulations that regulate the publication or transmission of sexually explicit and pornographic material electronically. Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 deal with the publication or transmission of such materials, while Section 67B deals with certain kinds of sexually explicit material involving children. The application of these clauses depends on content and circumstance.

2. Forwarding Is an Act, Not Merely a Gesture

The idea that a WhatsApp forward is just something that has been "shared" tends to downplay the importance of the act. Forwarding can increase the audience for a piece of content, make it easier for it to spread, and, in certain situations, even help someone commit a crime. The issue of accountability for its future dissemination is not always resolved by the fact that the original content was produced by someone else.

This is exemplified in cases of copyright infringement. The Copyright Act of 1957 protects original literary, artistic, musical and other works. While Section 63 of the Act prescribes the criminal punishment for any act committed with intent to infringe on copyrighted work or for knowingly aiding or abetting such infringement, Section 51 defines what constitutes the infringement of copyright. The simple act of sharing a link to a movie, a book, a software program or any other work protected by the Act will not always necessarily amount to 'crystal clear' criminal responsibility; an investigation into the nature of the content, rights owned, nature of behaviour of the person sharing and required law must be made. A messaged group is not something that questions or impacts the rights of copyright owners.

If a recipient sends such content without checking it, they might unintentionally aid in its spread. Depending on the relevant statutory elements and supporting documentation, it is a different matter entirely whether or not that individual faces legal obligation. However, indiscriminate sending is not a responsible practice just because there is no criminal culpability in a given situation. Even though digital communication does not in and of itself create a legal responsibility, it does create an ethical duty of care. 

3. Freedom of Speech, Intermediary Obligations and Group Administrator Liability

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution provides for the right to freedom of speech and expression. But sub-article 19(2) provides for reasonable restrictions on this right, and these restrictions, as they have been provided, are reasonable restrictions under the following grounds, namely: – public order, decency or morality, and defamation. So, the right is not absolute.

The due diligence specifications for intermediaries are contained in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, as amended. Read along with these are the prescribed obligations of due diligence which must be placed into the context of the intermediary versus that of the criminal wrongdoer of a user or group admin. Even a consent to a malevolent post being posted on a WhatsApp group cannot itself be deemed a general violation of the rules.

In addition, the role and liability of a group admin are matters that should be pondered upon. Merely having the power to include or exclude members from the group, without proof of being responsible for every post made by a certain participant, cannot be grounds for holding an admin responsible for any offensive post made by any of the others. In Kishor v. State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court considered the question of the liability of an admin for offensive posts made by another member of the group.

This finding does not mean an administrator will always be free from criminal liability. There could be a different situation if the administrator personally creates, distributes, enables or aids in publication of illegal material or even conduct that constitutes a crime. The difference is the existence of duties under the control of the administrator as opposed to duties under their own lawful conduct.

4. The Case for Responsible Digital Conduct

The law has the ability to recognise wrongful behaviour and impose a sanction, but alone it cannot ensure that all use of the medium is thoughtful, proportionate and respectful. It’s mainly the audience that has that obligation.

False allegations, unapproved copyrighted content, personal images, fake links, and content that violates the dignity and rights of another should not be part of a WhatsApp group. Admins can assist by setting out what a group's aims are, banning abuse, and reacting to something that needs reacting to. To post content, members should exercise their judgement, particularly if the content is related to another person's reputation, privacy, or finance.

The principle is quite straightforward: ease of transmission should not be mistaken for lack of responsibility. There remains a potential for illegal behaviour and rights breaches in what is essentially a private gathering. Nevertheless, it is essential to think about the details in each case and the factors of the law before asserting any legal consequences.

Think before you type. Verify before you forward. Respect before you post.

‍

Executive Summary:
‍

Amid the ongoing conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, a video showing a building engulfed in flames is being widely circulated on social media. In the clip, a large fire can be seen inside a building while several people appear to be running in panic. The video is being shared with the claim that Iran fired a hypersonic missile targeting a ceremony in Tel Aviv, Israel, allegedly killing several Israeli military generals and other prominent figures.

However, research by the CyberPeace found that the claim is false. The video being circulated as footage of an attack in Israel actually predates the current conflict and shows a fire that broke out during a wedding ceremony.

‍

Claim

‍

A Facebook user named “Syed Asif Raza Jafri” shared the video on March 13, 2026, claiming that an Iranian hypersonic missile had struck a grand ceremony in Tel Aviv, where several Israeli military officers, generals, soldiers, and other important personalities were present. According to the post, the attack resulted in multiple casualties.

Source:

• https://www.facebook.com/reel/902182825912364
• https://ghostarchive.org/archive/rZryr

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we began our research using the Google Lens reverse image search tool. Several key frames from the viral video were extracted and searched online.

During the search, we found the same video shared earlier on multiple foreign social media accounts. A Facebook user named “Es de Bombero” from Chile had posted the video on January 17, 2026, describing it in Spanish as footage of a fire that broke out during a wedding celebration.

• https://www.facebook.com/reel/898957402853732 

‍

‍

Our research shows that the viral video had been circulating on social media since at least January 15, 2026, well before the escalation of the current conflict. According to a report published on March 1, 2026, by BBC, the large-scale attacks on Iran by the United States and Israel began on February 28, 2026, after which Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was reported dead.

‍

Additionally, a March 12, 2026 report by Al Jazeera stated that a house near Tel Aviv in central Israel was damaged by a rocket reportedly fired by Hezbollah, which has previously carried out joint attacks in coordination with Iran.

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The viral video being shared as footage of an Iranian hypersonic missile strike in Tel Aviv is misleading. The clip is an older video of a fire that reportedly broke out during a wedding ceremony and was circulating online before the current conflict began.

While the exact location of the incident shown in the video cannot be independently verified, it is clear that the footage has no connection to the ongoing war between the United States, Israel, and Iran.

‍

Executive Summary:
‍‍

A video circulating on social media claims that people in Balochistan, Pakistan, hoisted the Indian national flag and declared independence from Pakistan. The claim has gone viral, sparking strong reactions and spreading misinformation about the geopolitical scenario in South Asia. Our research reveals that the video is misrepresented and actually shows a celebration in Surat, Gujarat, India.

‍

‍

Claim:

‍

A viral video shows people hoisting the Indian flag and allegedly declaring independence from Pakistan in Balochistan. The claim implies that Baloch nationals are revolting against Pakistan and aligning with India.

‍

Fact Check:

‍
After researching the viral video, it became clear that the claim was misleading. We took key screenshots from the video and performed a reverse image search to trace its origin. This search led us to one of the social media posts from the past, which clearly shows the event taking place in Surat, Gujarat, not Balochistan.

‍

‍

In the original clip, a music band is performing in the middle of a crowd, with people holding Indian flags and enjoying the event. The environment, language on signboards, and festive atmosphere all confirm that this is an Indian Independence Day celebration. From a different angle, another photo we found further proves our claim.

‍

‍

However, some individuals with the intention of spreading false information shared this video out of context, claiming it showed people in Balochistan raising the Indian flag and declaring independence from Pakistan. The video was taken out of context and shared with a fake narrative, turning a local celebration into a political stunt. This is a classic example of misinformation designed to mislead and stir public emotions.

To add further clarity, The Indian Express published a report on May 15 titled ‘Slogans hailing Indian Army ring out in Surat as Tiranga Yatra held’. According to the article, “A highlight of the event was music bands of Saifee Scout Surat, which belongs to the Dawoodi Bohra community, seen leading the yatra from Bhagal crossroads.” This confirms that the video was from an event in Surat, completely unrelated to Balochistan, and was falsely portrayed by some to spread misleading claims online.

‍

Conclusion:

‍
The claim that people in Balochistan hoisted the Indian national flag and declared independence from Pakistan is false and misleading. The video used to support this narrative is actually from Surat, Gujarat, India, during “The Tiranga Yatra”. Social media users are urged to verify the authenticity and source of content before sharing, to avoid spreading misinformation that may escalate geopolitical tensions.
‍

• ‍Claim: Mass uprising in Balochistan as citizens reject Pakistan and honor India.
• ‍Claimed On: Social Media
• ‍Fact Check: False and Misleading