#FactCheck-AI-generated video of ‘giant hailstorm in Maharashtra’ falsely shared as real weather event
Executive Summary
A video showing unusually large hailstones falling from the sky and damaging parked vehicles is being widely circulated on social media. Users are claiming that the video shows a severe hailstorm in Maharashtra amid the ongoing heatwave conditions in several parts of the country. CyberPeace Research Wing research found the claim to be false. The viral clip is not a real weather event and has been identified as AI-generated content.
Claim:
Social media users shared the video claiming it shows heavy hailstorm in Maharashtra, with captions suggesting widespread damage caused by extreme weather. https://www.facebook.com/reel/1741412617041722, https://archive.is/W2QxM
Fact Check:
A reverse image search of keyframes from the viral video did not yield any credible media reports linking the visuals to any real hailstorm in Maharashtra or elsewhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRsWLRowbao
Closer examination of the video revealed multiple inconsistencies, including unnatural movement and unrealistic size and behavior of hailstones, which are commonly associated with AI-generated visuals. The video was further analysed using AI detection tools. Hive Moderation flagged the content as likely AI-generated.
Similarly, Sightengine analysis indicated a 99% probability that the visuals were artificially created.
Conclusion:
The research confirms that the viral video claiming to show a massive hailstorm in Maharashtra is not real. The visuals are AI-generated and do not depict any actual weather event.
Related Blogs
Procedural History:
The case started with a 2011 Madras High Court ruling that included the appellant’s personal information. In the case discussed, the court decided in 2024, the appellant went to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court to request that his name and other identifying information from that previous ruling be redacted. He argued that his right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution was violated by the ongoing release of such private information into the public arena. He claimed that the revelation had hurt him in real ways, such as having his application for an Australian visa denied. Therefore, without compromising the ideals of open justice, the current procedures aimed to have the court recognize a person’s “Right to be Forgotten” within a broader framework of privacy and data protection.
Background and Factual Matrix
The appellant was charged under Sections 417 and 376 of the IPC. The trial court convicted him in 201, but later, the High Court in 2014 fully, completely and unconditionally acquitted him, which was not based on the benefit of doubt. Following the acquittal, he remarried and has three children. The judgment of both the High Court and the Trial Court has personal and intimate details about him. Being available in the public domain has caused him significant repercussions, as he was denied a visa to travel to Australia by authorities, citing the criminal cases. The appellant has filed a plea seeking a mandamus directing the Registrar General, Additional Registrar General, and Registrar (IT-Statistics) as R1, R2, R3 to redact his name and other identities from the acquittal judgment. He has sought a direction from Ikanoon Software Development Private Limited (R4) to reflect the redaction in its publication.
Issue
- Whether a writ of mandamus can lie against a High Court for redaction of personal details from its own judgment, or does such a prayer tantamount to a High Court issuing a writ against itself?
- Whether the High Court, being a Court of Record under Article 215 of the Indian Constitution, is entitled to preserve its record for perpetuity in its original form without any modification or redaction?
- Whether the ‘Right to be Forgotten' can be recognised and enforced in the absence of a specific statutory provision or Supreme Court direction, given that it constitutes an exception to the fundamental principle of open courts and open justice?
Adjudication and Reasoning
The division bench has allowed the Writ appeal and granted the following relief:
- R4 directed to take down the judgment in Crl.A. (MD) No.321 of 2011 dated 30.04.2014 forthwith.
- R1 to R3 directed to redact the name and other details of the Writ Petitioner relating to his identity from the judgment dated 30.04.2014 in Crl.A.(MD) No. 321 of 2011 and ensure that only the redacted judgment is available for publication or for uploading.
Rule
- Courts have a wide discretion in deciding whether to allow redaction or not. Such discretion can either be granted at the request of the party seeking redaction or, in appropriate cases, even suo moto by the court.
- The accused who have earned full, complete and unconditional acquittal without any benefit of doubt have a legitimate claim to move forward for redaction of personal information.
- The open Court doesn’t require absolute disclosure of all personal information, and the courts, while deciding the concern of privacy and the right to ensure that in litigations to leave behind parts of their past which are no longer relevant, have to balance the concept of open Court on the one hand and privacy concerns of a citizen on the other.
- As the High Court is the repository of a wide range of information and is entitled to preserve the original record in perpetuity. However, without diluting the sanctity of the original record, the public reflection of that record can be moderated to preserve the privacy of the person to whom that record pertains.
Reasoning
- Drawing on the judgment K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the court found Article 21 to protect not only informational privacy but also the "right to be forgotten," which gives individuals the right to request the deletion of any personal data when there is no longer any legitimate public interest in retaining such information. Such irreparable reputational damage is thus an infringement on constitutional privacy that demands judicial redaction.
- The court rejected the argument that a writ against its own order is impermissible, drawing a distinction between challenging the legal correctness of a judgment and seeking redaction of personal information. Allowing redaction will not question the validity of the judgment; rather, it will simply change its public appearance to ensure privacy.
- Since a High Court is a Court of Record with an obligation to preserve its judgments in their unaltered form forever, the court held here that such internal maintenance of complete records was not incompatible with the issuance of a redacted public version. Institutional integrity is maintained when the original kept in the archives is supplemented with a public version that masks the privacy areas.
- Open justice principles work to establish transparency, accountability, and public confidence, but these are not absolute. The court took a proportionality stance: personal identifiers, where they neither educate nor have precedential value and continue to inflict harm, may be expunged without affecting the established legal principles of judgment.
- Although the DPDP Act exempts courts from several statutory obligations, the court held that it can, by virtue of its inherent discretion, protect personal data, and in so doing, exercise that power without the need for any legislative command. Traditionally the Madras High Court rules provide for the possibility of restriction of certified copies, thus establishing redaction as feasible both legally and administratively.
.webp)
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.
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.
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.
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.
