#FactCheck: AI-Generated Video Falsely Shared as Real Footage of a Baby Elephant Being Rescued from a Railway Track

Introduction: Reasons Why These Amendments Have Been Suggested.

The suggested changes in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, are the much-needed regulatory reaction to the blistering emergence of synthetic information and deepfakes. These reforms are due to the pressing necessity to govern risks within the digital ecosystem as opposed to regular reformation.

‍

The Emergence of the Digital Menace

‍

Generative AI tools have also facilitated the generation of very realistic images, videos, audio, and text in recent years. Such artificial media have been abused to portray people in situations they are not in or in statements they have never said. The market size is expected to have a compound annual growth rate(CAGR) from 2025 to 2031 of 37.57%, resulting in a market volume of US$400.00 bn by 2031. Therefore, tight regulatory controls are necessary to curb a high prevalence of harm in the Indian digital world.

‍

The Gap in Law and Institution

‍

None of the IT Rules, 2021, clearly addressed synthetic content. Although the Information Technology Act, 2000 dealt with identity theft, impersonation and violation of privacy, the intermediaries were not explicitly obligated on artificial media. This left a loophole in enforcement, particularly since AI-generated content might get around the old system of moderation. These amendments bring India closer to the international standards, including the EU AI Act, which requires transparency and labelling of AI-driven content. India addresses such requirements and adapts to local constitutional and digital ecosystem needs.

‍

II. Explanation of the Amendments

The amendments of 2025 present five alternative changes in the current IT Rules framework, which address various areas of synthetic media regulation. 

‍

A. Definitional Clarification: Synthetic Generation of Information Introduction.

‍

Rule 2(1)(wa) Amendment:

The amendments provide an all-inclusive definition of what is meant by “synthetically generated information” as information, which is created, or produced, changed or distorted with the use of a computer resource, in a way that such information can reasonably be perceived to be genuine. This definition is intentionally broad and is not limited to deepfakes in the strict sense but to any artificial media that has gone through algorithmic manipulation in order to have a semblance of authenticity.

Expansion of Legal Scope:

Rule 2(1A) also makes it clear that any mention of information in the context of unlawful acts, namely, including categories listed in Rule 3(1)(b), Rule 3(1)(d), Rule 4(2), and Rule 4(4), should be understood to mean synthetically generated information. This is a pivotal interpretative protection that does not allow intermediaries to purport that synthetic versions of illegal material are not under the control of the regulation since they are algorithmic creations and not descriptions of what actually occurred.

‍

B. Safe Harbour Protection and Content Removal Requirements

‍

Amendment, rule 3(1)(b)- Safe Harbour Clarification:

The amendments add a certain proviso to the Rule (3) (1)(b) that explains a deletion or facilitation of access of synthetically produced information (or any information falling within specified categories) which the intermediaries have made in good faith as part of reasonable endeavours or at the receipt of a complaint shall not be considered a breach of the Section 79(2) (a) or (b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This coverage is relevant especially since it insures the intermediaries against liability in situations where they censor the synthetic contents in advance of a court ruling or governmental warnings.

‍

C. Labelling and Metadata Requirements that are mandatory on Intermediaries that enable the creation of synthetic content

‍

The amendments establish a new framework of due diligence in Rule 3(3) on the case of intermediaries that offer tools to generate, modify, or alter the synthetically generated information. Two fundamental requirements are laid down. 

1. The generated information must be prominently labelled or embedded with a permanent, unique metadata or identifier. The label or metadata must be:

1. Visibly displayed or made audible in a prominent manner on or within that synthetically generated information.
2. It should cover at least 10% of the surface of the visual display or, in the case of audio content, during the initial 10% of its duration.
3. It can be used to immediately identify that such information is synthetically generated information which has been created, generated, modified, or altered using the computer resource of the intermediary. 

2. The intermediary in clause (a) shall not enable modification, suppression or removal of such label, permanent unique metadata or identifier, by whatever name called.

‍

D. Important Social Media Intermediaries- Pre-Publication Checking Responsibilities

‍

The amendments present a three-step verification mechanism, under Rule 4(1A), to Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs), which enables displaying, uploading or publishing on its computer resource before such display, uploading, or publication has to follow three steps. 

Step 1- User Declaration: It should compel the users to indicate whether the materials they are posting are synthetically created. This puts the first burden on users. 

Step 2-Technical Verification: To ensure that the user is truly valid, the SSMIs need to provide reasonable technical means, such as automated tools or other applications. This duty is contextual and would be based on the nature, format and source of content. It does not allow intermediaries to escape when it is known that not every type of content can be verified using the same standards.

Step 3- Prominent Labelling: In case the synthetic origin is verified by user declaration or technical verification, SSMIs should have a notice or label that is prominently displayed to be seen by users before publication.

The amendments provide a better system of accountability and set that intermediaries will be found to have failed due diligence in a case where it is established that they either knowingly permitted, encouraged or otherwise failed to act on synthetically produced information in contravention of these requirements. This brings in an aspect of knowledge, and intermediaries cannot use accidental errors as an excuse for non-compliance. 

An explanation clause makes it clear that SSMIs should also make reasonable and proportionate technical measures to check user declarations and keep no synthetic content published without adequate declaration or labelling. This eliminates confusion on the role of the intermediaries with respect to making declarations.

‍

III. Attributes of The Amendment Framework

‍

1. Precision in Balancing Innovation and Accountability.

The amendments have commendably balanced two extreme regulatory postures by neither prohibiting nor allowing the synthetic media to run out of control. It has recognised the legitimate use of synthetic media creation in entertainment, education, research and artistic expression by adopting a transparent and traceable mandate that preserves innovation while ensuring accountability. 

2. Overt Acceptance of the Intermediary Liability and Reverse Onus of Knowledge

Rule 4(1A) gives a highly significant deeming rule; in cases where the intermediary permits or refrains from acting with respect to the synthetic content knowing that the rules are violated, it will be considered as having failed to comply with the due diligence provisions. This description closes any loopholes in unscrupulous supervision where intermediaries can be able to argue that they did so. Standard of scienter promotes material investment in the detection devices and censor mechanisms that have been in place to offer security to the platforms that have sound systems, albeit the fact that the tools fail to capture violations at times.

3. Clarity Through Definition and Interpretive Guidance

The cautious definition of the term “synthetically generated information” and the guidance that is provided in Rule 2(1A) is an admirable attempt to solve confusion in the previous regulatory framework. Instead of having to go through conflicting case law or regulatory direction, the amendments give specific definitional limits. The purposefully broad formulation (artificially or algorithmically created, generated, modified or altered) makes sure that the framework is not avoided by semantic games over what is considered to be a real synthetic content versus a slight algorithmic alteration.

4. Insurance of non-accountability but encourages preventative moderation

The safe harbour clarification of the Rule 3(1)(b) amendment clearly safeguards the intermediaries who voluntarily dismiss the synthetic content without a court order or government notification. It is an important incentive scheme that prompts platforms to implement sound self-regulation measures. In the absence of such protection, platforms may also make rational decisions to stay in a passive stance of compliance, only deleting content under the pressure of an external authority, thus making them more effective in keeping users safe against dangerous synthetic media.

‍

IV. Conclusion

‍

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2025 suggest a structured, transparent, and accountable execution of curbing the rising predicaments of synthetic media and deepfakes. The amendments deal with the regulatory and interpretative gaps that have always existed in determining what should be considered as synthetically generated information, the intermediary liabilities and the mandatory labelling and metadata requirement. Safe-harbour protection will encourage the moderation proactively, and a scienter-based liability rule will not permit the intermediaries to escape liability when they are aware of the non-compliance but tolerate such non-compliance. The idea to introduce pre-publication verification of Significant Social Media Intermediaries adds the responsibility to users and due diligence to the platform. Overall, the amendments provide a reasonable balance between innovation and regulation, make the process more open with its proper definitions, promote responsible conduct on the platform and transform India and the new standards in the sphere of synthetic media regulation. They collaborate to enhance the verisimilitude, defence of the users, and visibility of the systems of the digital ecosystem of India.

‍

V. References 

‍

1. Amendments To The Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules 2021 It Rules 2021 | Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology

2. https://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/artificial-intelligence/generative-ai/worldwide 

‍

Executive Summary

‍
A video is going viral on social media in which Defence Minister Rajnath Singh is seen allegedly saying, “During Operation Sindoor, we initially hid the losses of jets and soldiers so that Pakistan could not use them for propaganda. Later, a documentary was made to reveal the truth.” Research by the CyberPeace Research Wing found that the video is completely fake and was created using artificial intelligence (AI). Defence Minister Rajnath Singh never made any such statement. The video has primarily been circulated by Pakistani accounts. 

‍

Claim:

‍

A video of Rajnath Singh has been shared by a Pakistani user on the social media platform X, with the caption: “Rajnath Singh while commenting on Operation Sindoor documentary makes a starting revelation, Initially we did not admit any jet or soldier losses to avoid giving any propaganda chances for Pakistan but then we made this documentary to tell the truth.” The post link and screenshot are provided below.

https://x.com/i/status/2091095915021193252 

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

To investigate the viral claim, we first extracted keyframes from the video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During this process, we found the original video on ANI’s X account, in which Defense Minister Rajnath Singh can be seen saying: Defense Minister Rajnath Singh said, “The remarks made yesterday in the Lok Sabha by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi and India’s foreign policy are extremely cheap and condemnable. Personally, this is painful for me as well. In my long political life, I have never seen such unbecoming and unthinkable behavior from any Leader of Opposition. Such conduct poses a serious threat to a healthy democracy. Rahul Gandhi may feel disappointment toward the Prime Minister, but such improper remarks are unacceptable—especially when PM Modi has elevated India’s national and international prestige and paved the way for a ‘Viksit Bharat’.

Working with complete dedication for 12 years, he has not taken a single day off. Such unbecoming remarks against such a Prime Minister pain every Indian I would also humbly like to ask the Congress Party: after such language and conduct, can it still claim the legacy of great stalwarts ranging from Lal-Bal-Pal and Gandhi, Patel, Nehru to Subhas Babu, Rajendra Babu, Shastri Ji, Narasimha Rao Ji, and Pranab Mukherjee? Through this behavior, Rahul Gandhi has not only insulted Prime Minister Narendra Modi but also damaged India’s international reputation. He has tarnished the dignity of the post of Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. I cannot even imagine that anyone carrying the surname 'Gandhi' could make such a shameful remark.” Throughout the entire video, he never made the statement attributed to him in the viral claim. The post link and screenshot are provided below.

https://x.com/ANI/status/2088230045102002466 

‍

‍

We scanned the audio on the AI detection tool Resemble AI, where the results confirmed that the voice is AI-generated.

‍

‍

We also scanned the clip on another AI detection tool, Detect Video AI, where the results indicated that the viral video is 57 percent AI-generated.

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

Our research revealed that the viral video is completely fake and was created using Artificial Intelligence (AI). The research confirmed that Defense Minister Rajnath Singh made no such statement. It was also revealed during the fact-check that this fake video is being primarily circulated on social media through Pakistani accounts.

‍

Executive Summary

‍

Ahead of the final phase of the West Bengal Assembly elections, a claim regarding Uttar Pradesh cadre IPS officer Ajay Pal Sharma began circulating widely on social media. Users claimed that Sharma was being sent to West Bengal on deputation for a period of five years. However, research conducted by CyberPeace Research Wing found the claim to be false. Sources close to the IPS officer confirmed that no such deputation order has been issued so far and that Ajay Pal Sharma is currently posted as Additional Commissioner in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. Ajay Pal Sharma had earlier been deployed as a police observer during the West Bengal elections. During that period, a video of him warning Trinamool Congress candidate Jahangir Khan from the Falta constituency had gone viral on social media.

‍

Claim

‍

Several users on Facebook and X claimed that Ajay Pal Sharma had been transferred to West Bengal for five years under an administrative arrangement involving experienced officers from different states. One Facebook user wrote:“This decision has been taken under an administrative arrangement through which experienced officers are deployed in different states.”

• https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=818902764628152&set=a.296761956842238&type=3
• https://perma.cc/FD8Q-CF7L?type=standard

‍

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

Our research found that the deputation claim is false. Ajay Pal Sharma is currently serving as Additional Commissioner in Prayagraj, a position he has held since 2025. Further scrutiny revealed that the claim appears to have originated from a parody account on X. On May 4, around 6 PM, the account @abdullah_0mar posted the claim regarding Sharma’s alleged five-year deputation to Bengal. However, in the comments section, the user later clarified that the post was intended as satire.

• https://x.com/abdullah_0mar/status/2051277192018203071

‍

‍

We also reviewed several news reports regarding Ajay Pal Sharma’s role during the West Bengal elections. Reports confirmed that the Election Commission had deployed him as a police observer in South 24 Parganas district during the polls. However, none of the reports mentioned any five-year transfer or deputation to West Bengal.

• https://www.indiatoday.in/elections/assembly/story/ajay-pal-sharma-up-encounter-specialist-singham-bengal-elections-2902589-2026-04-28

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The viral claim is false. No official order has been issued regarding IPS officer Ajay Pal Sharma’s deputation to West Bengal for five years. Sources close to the officer confirmed that he continues to serve as Additional Commissioner in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. Sharma had only been deputed as a police observer during the West Bengal Assembly elections, during which a video of him warning TMC candidate Jahangir Khan went viral online.

‍