#FactCheck: Debunking the Edited Image Claim of PM Modi with Hafiz Saeed

Introduction

The Central Electricity Authority (CEA) has released the Draft Central Electricity Authority (Cyber Security in Power Sector) Regulations, 2024, inviting ‘comments’ from stakeholders, including the general public, which are to be submitted by 10 September 2024. The new regulation is intended to make India’s power sector more cyber-resilient and responsive to counter emerging cyber threats and safeguard the nation's power infrastructure.

Key Highlights of the CEA’s New (Cyber Security in Power Sector) Regulations, 2024

• Central Electricity Authority has framed the ‘Cyber Security in Power Sector Regulations, 2024’ in the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of 177 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in order to make regulations for measures relating to Cyber Security in the power sector.
• The scope of the regulation entails that these regulations will be applicable to all Responsible Entities, Regional Power Committees, Appropriate Commission, Appropriate Government and Associated Power Sector Government Organizations, and Training Institutes recognized by the Authority, Authority and Vendors.
• One key aspect of the proposed regulation is the establishment of a dedicated Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT) for the power sector. This team will coordinate a unified cyber defense strategy throughout the sector, establishing security frameworks, and serving as the main agency for handling incident response and recovery. The CSIRT will also be responsible for creating/developing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), security policies, and best practices for incident response activities in consultation with CERT-In and NCIIPC. The detailed roles and responsibilities of CSIRT are outlined under Chapter 2 of the said regulations.
• All responsible entities in the power sector as mentioned under the scope of the regulation, are mandated to appoint a Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) and an alternate CISO, who need to be Indian nationals and who are senior management employees. The regulations specify that these officers must directly report to the  CEO/Head of the Responsible Entity. Thus emphasizing the critical nature of CISO’s roles in safeguarding the nation’s power grid sector assets.
• All Responsible Entities shall establish an Information Security Division (ISD) dedicated to ensuring Cyber Security, headed by the CISO and remain operational around the clock. The schedule under regulation entails that the minimum workforce required for setting up an ISD is 04 (Four) officers including CISO and 04 officers/officials for shift operations. Sufficient workforce and infrastructure support shall be ensured for ISD. The detailed functions and responsibilities of ISD are outlined under Chapter 5 regulation 10. Furthermore, the ISD shall be manned by sufficient numbers of officers, having valid certificates of successful completion of domain-specific Cyber Security courses.
• The regulation obliged the entities to have a defined, documented and maintained Cyber Security Policy which is approved by the Board or Head of the entity. The regulation also obliged the entities to have a Cyber Crisis Management Plan (CCMP) approved by the higher management.
• As regards upskilling and empowerment the regulation advocates for organising or conducting periodic Cyber Security awareness programs and Cyber Security exercises including mock drills and tabletop exercises.

CyberPeace Policy Outlook

CyberPeace Policy & Advocacy Vertical has submitted its detailed recommendations on the proposed ‘Cyber Security in Power Sector Regulations, 2024’ to the Central Electricity Authority, Government of India. We have advised on various aspects within the regulation including harmonisation of these regulations with other rules as issued by CERT-In and NCIIPC, at present. As this needs to be clarified which set of guidelines will supersede in case of any discrepancy that may arise. Additionally, we advised on incorporating or making modifications to specific provisions under the regulation for a more robust framework. We have also emphasized legal mandates and penalties for non-compliance with cybersecurity, so as to make sure that these regulations do not only act as guiding principles but also provide stringent measures in case of non-compliance.

References: 

1. https://cea.nic.in/wp-content/uploads/notification/2024/08/Draft_CEA_Cyber_Security_in_Power_Sectyor_Regulations_2024_English_Version.pdf

‍

Introduction
‍

India is reaching a turning point in its technological development when the AI Impact Summit 2026 is held in New Delhi. Artificial Intelligence (AI)is transforming economies, labour markets, governance structures and even the grammar of public discourse. It is no longer a frontier of speculation. The challenge facing the Summit is not whether AI will change our societies, it has already done so but rather whether inclusiveness and human dignity will serve as the foundation for this change. 

India’s AI journey is defined by scale. The nation has one of the biggest user bases for cutting edge AI systems worldwide. According to projections, AI may create millions of new technology-driven occupations by 2030 and change the nature of millions more. This is a structural reconfiguration rather than an incremental alteration. The stakes are high for a country with a large youth population and diverse socioeconomic diversity. 

‍

India’s Tryst with Artificial Intelligence
‍

India’s tryst with AI is a developmental imperative occurring at a civilisational scale not a show put on for a western favour. AI is still portrayed in many international storylines as a competition between China’s state backed rapidity, Europe’s sophisticated regulations and Silicon Valley’s capital. India is far too frequently a huge consumer market rather than a significant force behind the AI era.  Such evaluations undervalue a nation that has already proven its capacity to implement technology at a democratic scale through its digital public infrastructure. AI in India is about more than just improving algorithms, it’s about giving millions more people access to social safety, healthcare, agriculture and education.

The scepticism overlooks a deeper truth, India innovates not from abundance but from urgency. India remains certain that technical advancement must be in line with social justice and inclusive growth. The recollections from history suggest that India’s greatest technological strides have often followed underestimation. 

‍

A Conclave of Contagious Ideas

‍

India has long been the favourite underestimation of certain western observers, a nation of 1.4 billion people, the world’s fifth largest economy, a noisy democracy with inconvenient geopolitical realities, often assessed by counterparts governing populations smaller than many of its states. Advice follows in spades, sometimes from cities that mastered the art of strategic improvisation long before they preached restraint and sometimes with lectures on innovation, governance and order. 

However, there are times when hierarchies need to be rearranged. It was hard to overlook the symbolism when Ranvir Sachdeva, the youngest keynote speaker at the AI Impact Summit, 2026, took the stage, “I’m here as the youngest keynote speaker at the Indian AI Impact Summit,” he said, discussing how he’s connecting ancient Indian beliefs to contemporary technology and the various strategies that other countries are doing to develop AI. In that simple articulation lay a quiet rebuttal, a civilization that once debated metaphysics under banyan trees is now debating ethics in plenary halls. History constantly demonstrates that India’s permanent address has never been underestimation. 

‍

From New Delhi to Geneva: The Global Arc of AI Governance
‍

Now that the AI Impact Summit, 2026 is coming to an end, what’s left is not just the recollection of its size but also the form of new international dialogue. The New Delhi Declaration, a remarkable highlight of the Summit, was signed by eighty-eight nations and international organisations to support the democratic spread of AI. 

The increasing complexity of the AI order was also made clear by the Summit. Pledges for investments totalled hundred of billions. The U.S. led Pax Silica effort was joined by India. SovereignLLMs in the country were introduced. At the same time, spectators were reminded that the politics of AI are inextricably linked to its promise via logistical challenges, protest disruptions and business rivalries. Although nations are not bound by the New Delhi Declaration it does represent a growing consensus that acceleration must be accompanied by governance. 

The revelation that the 2027 AI Impact Summit will be in Geneva represents a significant shift in this regard. Guy Parmelin, the president of Switzerland, described the upcoming chapter as one that is primarily concerned with international law and good governance in an attempt to guarantee that the future of AI is not entirely in the hands of powerful nations. From scale and ambition in New Delhi to normative consolidation in Europe, Geneva, longtime hotbed of multilateral diplomacy, provides symbolic continuity. 

‍

Concluding Confluence
‍

It is tempting to view the Global CyberPeace Summit (GCS), a Pre-Summit Event of AI Impact Summit held in close succession at Bharat Mandapam on 10th February, 2026. They formed a strong intellectual arc. At GCS, inclusion was not ornamental. A deeper message was conveyed by India Signing Hands’ involvement and purposeful emphasis on accessibility, digital systems must be created with, not just for, those on margins. Resilience must start at the economic level, according to the AI-enabled cybersecurity engagement for MSMEs. Participants were reminded during the talks on Technology Facilitated Gender-Based Violence (TFGBV), CSAM prevention and child safety that technological arguments only gain significance when they are connected to real-world outcomes.

When Geneva takes over in 2027, the issue  will not just be how AI should be regulated, but also what ethical foundation that governance is built upon. New Delhi’s belief that wisdom and power must coexist may be its contribution to this developing narrative. That persistence has content than spectacle, as well as possibly the faint form of technical conscience. 

‍

Introduction

At 4 pm on August 3, 2026, representatives of Meta, X, Snapchat and Google walked into a room in Parliament to face India's Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology. On paper, it looked like one more instance of a routine that has repeated for half a decade: a Big Tech company gets called in, questioned, and sent away with a warning. But this summons, and the fortnight of scrutiny that has followed it, reveals something different about the direction of India's digital governance in 2026. The government's question has stopped being, "Will you take this post down?" It has increasingly become, "How does your platform actually work, and can we redesign the parts we don't like?"

The trigger: A technical glitch that became a systemic complaint

The proximate cause of the August 3 hearing was almost trivial by itself. On July 23, Prime Minister Narendra Modi posted a video on Instagram and Facebook about the government's crackdown on examination paper leaks. Meta briefly restricted the Facebook version before restoring it, blaming the removal on a technical error in its automated filters.

That explanation didn't satisfy the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY), which called it inadequate, and the incident became the occasion for a much broader reckoning. Committee chairperson Nishikant Dubey summoned Meta, X, Snapchat and Google to examine three things: the online safety of women and children; the data privacy of ordinary citizens, including farmers and labourers; and how far platforms actually comply with India's law-and-order requirements. Days later, MeitY brought Meta's global team in for two days of direct questioning that stretched into a third day of technical discussions covering child sexual abuse material (CSAM), deepfakes, bot accounts and, notably, the design of Instagram's content-recommendation algorithm itself.

From takedown notices to systems audits

For most of the last decade, India's approach to online harm ran through blocking orders and the "notice-and-takedown" machinery built into the IT Rules, 2021: a court or government authority flags a specific URL or post, the platform has a fixed window to act, and non-compliance risks the loss of legal immunity. It was a model built around individual pieces of content.

What is unfolding now looks structurally different. Officials aren't only asking Meta to remove a video; they are asking why its recommendation systems keep resurfacing flagged material, why "verified" accounts belonging to prominent or official figures don't have extra layers of human review before restriction, and why bot-detection and CSAM-screening pipelines aren't catching harmful content before it spreads. The Supreme Court-monitored committee tracking "digital arrest" fraud has gone further still, directing MeitY, the Department of Telecommunications and the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) to study time-based restrictions on audio and video calls altogether, a proposal that touches the basic architecture of how calling features work, not any single conversation.

Parliament's committee has separately pushed for a national registration system that would require every intermediary operating in India to publicly list its grievance officer, nodal contact and compliance officer as a response to law enforcement's repeated difficulty simply reaching a platform when something goes wrong. It has also asked for tighter regulation of digital advertising, which officials say is routinely exploited for cyber fraud, and for rules under Section 67C of the IT Act governing how long intermediaries must preserve user data. None of this is about any one post; it is about redesigning the infrastructure platforms use to operate in India.

Messaging apps and the encryption problem

Nowhere is the shift from "content" to "architecture" clearer than in the government's dealings with peer-to-peer messaging platforms. WhatsApp has spent years contesting the traceability requirement under Rule 4(2) of the IT Rules in the Delhi High Court, arguing it would rather exit India than build a permanent capability to identify the "first originator" of every message since doing so would mean re-engineering its end-to-end encryption for all users, not just suspects.

That fight has resurfaced in a new form. In a submission to the parliamentary committee, WhatsApp argued that new rules requiring platforms to detect and label AI-generated "synthetic" content cannot technically apply inside encrypted chats because no one outside a conversation "not even WhatsApp" can see what's inside it. Signal has proven even harder to engage with: MeitY told the committee it has struggled to establish formal contact with the app, which does not publicly list a grievance officer, exposing how little leverage the government currently has over encrypted, minimally staffed platforms compared with advertising-funded giants like Meta and Google. The proposal to cap or restrict call durations to fight "digital arrest" scams is, in effect, an attempt to regulate a messaging feature rather than any message sent through it, perhaps the clearest sign yet that the fight has moved from posts to plumbing.

The future of "safe harbour"

Underpinning all of this is Section 79 of the IT Act,  the "safe harbour" clause that shields platforms from liability for what their users post, provided they exercise due diligence. That protection is now being squeezed from three directions at once. The parliamentary committee has unanimously recommended withdrawing safe harbour from platforms that don't comply with Indian law and said it should be pulled specifically from Meta unless its CEO apologises over the PM's video takedown, though a committee cannot itself revoke a statutory protection; only Parliament can amend Section 79. Separately, the Supreme Court-monitored panel on digital-arrest fraud is examining an explicit provision making intermediaries liable for the misuse of their platforms so that fraud victims could claim compensation directly. And MeitY's draft Second Amendment Rules, circulated in March 2026, go furthest of all: they propose making safe harbour conditional on real-time compliance with executive directions, rather than a general protection available to any platform that follows published rules, which is a more direct, command-driven model than even the European Union's Digital Services Act.

Why this matters beyond the headlines

For the ordinary internet user, none of this is abstract. A registration-and-disclosure regime, together with faster and more accountable grievance handling, could make it easier to get genuinely harmful content addressed. But architecture-level intervention cuts both ways. Rules aimed at traceability or at labelling encrypted content risk weakening the very privacy protections that make messaging apps trustworthy in the first place, and a safe harbour that hinges on obeying informal executive directions, rather than settled published law, hands the government far more day-to-day leverage over what stays online. The Supreme Court has listed the digital-arrest matter for September 16; how it, and Parliament, ultimately treat Section 79 will decide whether India's platforms remain neutral pipes carrying other people's speech or become extensions of state enforcement.

Conclusion

India’s digital-governance battle is no longer confined to individual posts or takedown orders. It is increasingly about the architecture beneath the internet: recommendation engines, encryption, verification, data retention and safe-harbour protections. That shift may strengthen accountability and user safety, but it also expands the state’s influence over digital infrastructure. As Parliament and the Supreme Court confront these questions, India faces a fundamental choice: regulate platforms or reshape how they operate.

Sources

• Parliament panel summons Meta, X, Google, Snapchat over digital safety — Hindustan Times
• Parliamentary panel summons Meta, Google, X and Snapchat over social media regulation — Economic Times
• Parliamentary Panel Summons Meta, X, Google on Digital Safety Rules — Asianet Newsable
• Panel Summons Meta, X, Snapchat, Google for Safety Review — New Kerala
• Meta, X, Google and Snapchat summoned by parliamentary panel on August 3 — BestMediaInfo

‍