#FactCheck : Edited video falsely claims Dr. Vikas Divyakirti targeted Narendra Modi
Executive Summary
A video circulating on social media shows Dr. Vikas Divyakirti speaking during a podcast, where he is heard saying, “Those who cannot even memorise and speak four sentences are considered the greatest in India.” Several users are sharing the clip claiming that the remark was aimed at Narendra Modi. However, a research by CyberPeace found the claim to be misleading. The research revealed that the viral clip has been edited and shared out of context. In the original video, Divyakirti made the remarks in reference to film stars, not the Prime Minister.
Claim
On Facebook, a user shared the viral clip with an English caption alleging that Divyakirti criticised Modi, saying he cannot speak without a teleprompter or scripted interviews and has built a false image of greatness.
Similarly, another user shared the video on X, suggesting that people who cannot speak without a teleprompter are still considered great in India, indirectly linking the remark to Modi.
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. This led us to the original video uploaded on the official YouTube channel of Raj Shamani.
At around the 3:55 mark, the same clip can be seen. During the conversation, Shamani asks whether building a larger-than-life perception actually benefits an individual. Responding to this, Dr. Vikas Divyakirti explains that film stars often have an exaggerated public image. He notes that many of the dialogues they are praised for are not written by them, but by others, and some even rely on teleprompters while speaking. He further adds that there are individuals who cannot even memorise and deliver four sentences or think independently, yet are regarded as great in India. He also mentions that many social media personalities use teleprompters, but audiences remain unaware and assume they possess exceptional knowledge.
Conclusion
The viral claim is misleading. The video has been edited and shared out of context. Dr. Vikas Divyakirti was referring to film stars and social media personalities, not Narendra Modi.
Related Blogs
Introduction
Earlier this month, lawmakers in Colorado, a U.S. state, were summoned to a special legislative session to rewrite their newly passed Artificial Intelligence (AI) law before it even takes effect. Although the discussion taking place in Denver may seem distant, evolving regulations like this one directly address issues that India will soon encounter as we forge our own course for AI governance.
The Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act
Colorado became the first U.S. state to pass a comprehensive AI accountability law, set to come into force in 2026. It aims to protect people from bias, discrimination, and harm caused by predictive algorithms since AI tools have been known to reproduce societal biases by sidelining women from hiring processes, penalising loan applicants from poor neighbourhoods, or through welfare systems that wrongly deny citizens their benefits. But the law met resistance from tech companies who threatened to pull out form the state, claiming it is too broad in scope in its current form and would stifle innovation. This brings critical questions about AI regulation to the forefront:
- Who should be responsible when AI causes harm? Developers, deployers, or both?
- How should citizens seek justice?
- How can tech companies be incentivised to develop safe technologies?
Colorado’s governor has called a special session to update the law before it kicks in.
What This Means for India
India is on its path towards framing a dedicated AI-specific law or directions, and discussions are underway through the IndiaAI Mission, the proposed Digital India Act, committee set by the Delhi High Court on deepfake and other measures. But the dilemmas Colorado is wrestling with are also relevant here.
- AI uptake is growing in public service delivery in India. Facial recognition systems are expanding in policing, despite accuracy and privacy concerns. Fintech apps using AI-driven credit scoring raise questions of fairness and transparency.
- Accountability is unclear. If an Indian AI-powered health app gives faulty advice, who should be liable- the global developer, the Indian startup deploying it, or the regulator who failed to set safeguards?
- India has more than 1,500 AI startups (NASSCOM), which, like Colorado’s firms, fear that onerous compliance could choke growth. But weak guardrails could undermine public trust in AI altogether.
Lessons for India
India’s Ministry of Electronics and IT ( MEITy) favours a light-touch approach to AI regulation, and exploring and advancing ways for a future-proof guideline. Further, lessons from other global frameworks can guide its way.
- Colorado’s case shows us the necessity of incorporating feedback loops in the policy-making process. India should utilise regulatory sandboxes and open, transparent consultation processes before locking in rigid rules.
- It will also need to explore proportionate obligations, lighter for low-risk applications and stricter for high-risk use cases such as policing, healthcare, or welfare delivery.
- Europe’s AI Act is heavy on compliance, the U.S. federal government leans toward deregulation, and Colorado is somewhere in between. India has the chance to create a middle path, grounded in our democratic and developmental context.
Conclusion
As AI becomes increasingly embedded in hiring, banking, education, and welfare, opportunities for ordinary Indians are being redefined. To shape how this pans out, states like Tamil Nadu and Telangana have taken early steps to frame AI policies. Lessons will emerge from their initiative in addressing AI governance. Policy and regulation will always be contested, but contestations are a part of the process.
The Colorado debate shows us how participative law-making, with room for debate, revision, and iteration, is not a weakness but a necessity. For India’s emerging AI governance landscape, the challenge will be to embrace this process while ensuring that citizen rights and inclusion are balanced well with industry concerns. CyberPeace advocates for responsible AI regulation that balances innovation and accountability.
References
- https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-lawmakers-look-repeal-replace-controversial-artificial-intelligence-law/
- https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/a-deep-dive-into-colorados-artificial-intelligence-act/
- https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/11/indias-advance-on-ai-regulation?lang=en
- https://the-captable.com/2024/12/india-ai-regulation-light-touch/
- https://indiaai.gov.in/article/tamilnadu-s-ai-policy-six-step-tamdef-guidance-framework-and-deepmax-scorecard
.webp)
Introduction
The digital ecosystem has undergone a profound transformation due to the rapid growth of artificial intelligence, especially through its generative applications. While this progress has introduced innovative technologies, it has also intensified the risks of deepfakes, misinformation, and identity theft. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026, introduced by the Government of India, mark an important step toward stronger digital governance and greater oversight of online activities. These latest amendments establish new regulatory standards and represent India’s most comprehensive effort so far to address synthetically generated information, including AI created audio, video, and images that closely imitate reality.
Understanding the Core Shift: From Reactive to Proactive Regulation
The 2026 amendment establishes its main characteristic through its shift from a reactive compliance system to a proactive due diligence system. Intermediaries must now operate as active participants who take responsibility for detecting, marking and controlling dangerous material instead of functioning as neutral channels. The rules establish an official definition for stands for Synthetically Generated Information(SGI), which they protect through legal regulations, while they address issues such as impersonation scams, election manipulation and non-consensual deepfake content. The current transition represents a worldwide pattern that shows that governments are starting to make online platforms responsible for the material they display.
Key Provisions of the IT Amendment Rules, 2026
1. Mandatory Labelling of AI-Generated Content
Platforms must ensure that all AI-generated content is clearly labelled or watermarked to distinguish it from authentic media. Users must reveal their uploaded content's synthetic origin while platforms must confirm the information.
2. The 3-Hour Takedown Rule
The most contentious aspect of this regulation establishes new rules that require content removal to be processed within much shorter timeframes.:
- The government and courts grant three-hour time limits for removing unlawful content.
- The two-hour deadline applies to media that includes non-consensual intimate imagery.
The current time frame allows content removal within three hours, which represents a major decrease from the previous content removal time, which lasted between 24 and 36 hours, because online misinformation needs urgent attention.
3. Traceability and Metadata Requirements
The rules require AI-generated content to include both digital fingerprints and metadata, which enables traceability and accountability through their embedded digital fingerprints. The provision serves as an essential tool for law enforcement to investigate cases while it helps identify which parties generated harmful content.
4. Safe Harbour Conditionality
Intermediaries who do not meet the following three conditions risk losing their safe harbour protection through Section 79 of the IT Act:
- The first requirement demands that intermediaries must implement proper labelling.
- The second requirement demands that intermediaries must complete their takedown responsibilities within specific timeframes
- The third requirement demands that intermediaries must complete their due diligence tasks.
This development represents a major transition for digital platforms, which will face increased responsibility for their actions.
5. Strengthened Grievance Redressal
The amendment establishes two new requirements for platforms. The amendment requires platforms to create systems that operate at all times to monitor their compliance with regulations.
Significance: Why These Rules Matter
The 2026 amendments are significant for multiple reasons:
- The rules require labelling and rapid content removal, which helps to stop the viral dissemination of misleading information.
- The framework provides better identity protection, defamation defence and protection against non-consensual imagery.
- The new rules make intermediaries responsible for their own compliance failures.
- The regulation of AI-generated misinformation protects democratic processes during electoral periods and public discussions.
The rules demonstrate India's goal to establish international standards for AI governance and digital responsibility.
Challenges and Concerns
The amendments present key issues that exist despite their positive aspects:
- The process of removing content at high speed creates risks for legitimate expression because safeguards need to be established through careful planning.
- The technical and infrastructural requirements governing compliance create financial burdens for smaller platforms that operate as intermediaries.
The existing challenges demonstrate the necessity for a solution that protects both human rights and security needs.
Conclusion
The IT Amendment Rules, 2026, establish a critical turning point for India's progress toward digital governance. The framework aims to establish a more secure digital environment through its solution of AI-generated content and deepfake detection problems, which create transparency and accountability issues. The rules will achieve their goals through proper implementation, which requires creating quick enforcement methods that protect both legal processes and free speech rights. The ongoing development of AI technology requires regulatory systems to keep changing while including all citizens and upholding democratic principles.
References
- https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/it-rules-amendment-2026
- https://indianexpress.com/article/legal-news/indias-new-3-hour-deepfake-removal-rule-experts-urge-strict-compliance-10528122
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/governments-new-it-rules-make-ai-content-labelling-mandatory-give-google-youtube-instagram-and-other-platforms-3-hours-for-takedowns/articleshow/128157496.cms
- https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/information-technology-amendment-rules-2026
- https://visionias.in/current-affairs/news-today/2026-02-11/science-and-technology/government-notified-the-information-technology-intermediary-guidelines-and-digital-media-ethics-code-amendment-rules-2026
Executive Summary:
A video that circulated on social media to show Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi inside a helicopter moments before the tragic crash on May 20, 2024, has equally been proven to be fake. The validation of information leaves no doubt, that the video was shot in January 2024, which showed Raisi’s visiting Nemroud Reservoir Dam project. As a means of verifying the origin of the video, the CyberPeace Research Team conducted reverse image search and analyzed the information obtained from the Islamic Republic News Agency, Mehran News, and the Iranian Students’ News Agency. Further, the associated press pointed out inconsistencies between the part in the video that went viral and the segment that was shown by Iranian state television. The original video is old and it is not related to the tragic crash as there is incongruence between the snowy background and the green landscape with a river presented in the clip.
Claims:
A video circulating on social media claims to show Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi inside a helicopter an hour before his fatal crash.
Fact Check:
Upon receiving the posts, in some of the social media posts we found some similar watermarks of the IRNA News agency and Nouk-e-Qalam News.
Taking a cue from this, we performed a keyword search to find any credible source of the shared video, but we found no such video uploaded by the IRNA News agency on their website. Recently, they haven’t uploaded any video regarding the viral news.
We closely analyzed the video, it can be seen that President Ebrahim Raisi was watching outside the snow-covered mountain, but in the internet-available footage regarding the accident, there were no such snow-covered mountains that could be seen but green forest.
We then checked for any social media posts uploaded by IRNA News Agency and found that they had uploaded the same video on X on January 18, 2024. The post clearly indicates the President’s aerial visit to Nemroud Dam.
The viral video is old and does not contain scenes that appear before the tragic chopper crash involving President Raisi.
Conclusion:
The viral clip is not related to the fatal crash of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi's helicopter and is actually from a January 2024 visit to the Nemroud Reservoir Dam project. The claim that the video shows visuals before the crash is false and misleading.
- Claim: Viral Video of Iranian President Raisi was shot before fatal chopper crash.
- Claimed on: X (Formerly known as Twitter), YouTube, Instagram
- Fact Check: Fake & Misleading
