#FactCheck: No, PM Modi Did Not Appear in Royal Attire,Image Is AI-Generated

Introduction

‍

In January 2026, the Basic Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and the Establishment of a Foundation for Trustworthiness came into effect in South Korea, establishing one of the first national AI laws in the world. The bill, enacted by the National Assembly of Korea in December 2024 and implemented from January 22, 2026, aims to strike a balance between the rapid advancement of technology and clear safeguards against risks, as well as transparency, accountability, and responsible AI use. It puts Seoul and the European Union on the frontline of developing legal systems for artificial intelligence and indicates a long-term goal of becoming an AI power on the global stage.

‍

What the AI Basic Act Covers

‍

The AI Basic Act consists of 19 separate AI bills that are merged into a single piece of legislation that covers the lifecycle of AI, including research and development, deployment, and utilisation. It is very wide in its coverage: it refers to any AI system that influences the Korean market or users inside the country, irrespective of the country in which it is created. The law does not apply to national defence and security applications.

The law defines key concepts like artificial intelligence, generative AI, and high-impact AI and establishes the principles of ethical AI, safety, user rights, industry support, and national policy coordination. It also offers a legal foundation for the activities of the government to promote AI innovation without jeopardising the common good.

Fundamentally, the AI Basic Act is designed to establish a culture of trust between businesses and the government/citizens. It does not prohibit AI technologies and does not excessively limit innovation. Instead, it creates the framework of responsible development and economic growth.

‍

Guardrails for Safety and Accountability

‍

One of the defining features of the AI Basic Act is its risk-based approach. Rather than considering all AI systems as similar, it makes a distinction between ordinary and high-impact AI systems, the ones applied in sectors where the wrong or unsafe decision can have a major impact on the safety, rights, or critical infrastructure of the population. Some of them can be seen in healthcare, transportation, financial services, education, and public services.

The high-impact AI operators must integrate risk management plans, human controls, and surveillance systems. In critical decision-making situations, human control should be available at all times; that is, machines can help but not override human control where human safety or other human rights are involved.

The law enables the regulators to perform on-site checks, demand documentation, and conduct compliance investigations. Fines for breaches may go up to 30 million Korean won (approximately 21,000 US dollars). It has a one-year period of transition that is based on guidance but not enforcement, thus allowing companies time to implement compliance measures before imposing fines.

These requirements contribute to enhancing accountability by defining who is accountable for the safety outcomes. The law in South Korea is placed in the ecosystem, as opposed to the methods in which industry self-governance alone is utilised. 

‍

Transparency and Labelling Requirements

‍

The AI Basic Act is based on transparency. The legislation ensures that users are notified before an AI system is operating, particularly with the generation of AI outputs that could be confused with human-created material. As an example, AI-generated text, images, video, or audio that may be difficult to distinguish between reality and fake must have obvious labels or watermarks to allow users to understand the source of the content.

The necessity to label is meant to fight misinformation, misleading activities, and unintended influence on the perception of the people. It is based on international anxiety regarding AI-generated content, such as deepfakes, manipulated media, and misleading online advertisements that have already been addressed separately in policy by South Korea, as well as discussions of data governance.

The transparency is also applied to the process of decision-making in AI systems. Developers and operators should be able to give explicit information about the way in which high-impact systems make their conclusions so that those who are victims of automated decisions can seek meaningful explanations. Although specific explainability criteria are in the process of being developed, the law grounds the principle that AI cannot act behind the scenes in situations where crucial decisions are being made.

‍

Data Privacy and User Protection

‍

The AI governance practice in South Korea is complementary to its current data protection laws, the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), which is broadly regarded as equivalent to major international data protection regulations like the GDPR in regard to personal data laws. The AI Basic Act provides an explanation as to how the data can be gathered, processed, and utilised within AI systems with regard to privacy rights, particularly in areas of high impact.

The law does not supersede the personal data protection policies, but it sets certain conditions on how AI developers must address the data to be utilised in training, testing, and running AIs. Operators will be required to document their data workflows and demonstrate how they guard the privacy of their users, including by transparency and consent mechanisms where necessary. This can assist in ensuring that the information that is utilised in AI functions is regulated by definite norms, and it is more difficult to avoid privacy requirements in the name of innovation.

‍

Accountability and Governance Infrastructure

‍

The AI Basic Act establishes a national policy framework of AI governance. The National Artificial Intelligence Strategy Committee, chaired by the President, is at the top and proposes the overall AI policy and aligns it with national objectives. The organisations that would support this are the specialised organisations that deal with safety, risk assessment, and research and the policy centre that would analyse the effects of AI on society and assist in its adoption by the industry.

This institutional structure facilitates strategic guidance as well as operational control. It is through incorporating AI governance in the administration of the people, but not into the market forces, that South Korea wishes to have the ethical and societal concerns become part of the sectors and agencies.

‍

Promoting Innovation and Industrial Support

‍

Although the AI Basic Act does not disregard regulation, it is not a law of restrictions. It also offers legal justification for research and development, human capital, and the growth of the AI industry, with special consideration for startups and small and medium-sized businesses. The legislation promotes AI clusters, long-term funding programmes, and policies to bring foreign talent to the Korean AI ecosystem.

This bidimensional approach of compliance and support is indicative of the broader desire of Korea to become one of the leading AI powers in the world, along with the US and China. The government has pointed out that it will encourage trust by having clear and predictable rules that will attract investment and maintain innovation and not stifle it.

‍

What This Means Globally

‍

The AI Basic Act of South Korea is not only interesting in its contents but also in its timing. It is also among the first thorough AI legislations to come into force in the world, and it beats the gradual regulatory implementations in other parts of the globe, like the European Union. Its system incorporates a principle-based framework, transparency requirements, accountability regulations, and industrial support, which reflects a contrasting model to either pure prescriptive risk regulation or lax self-regulation models elsewhere.

Other critics, such as industry groups and civil society organisations, have suggested that some of the protections may be more explicit, in particular to those who are harmed by AI systems, or to establish high-impact categories. Nonetheless, the framework sets a benchmark upon which most nations will pay close attention when they establish their own AI regimes.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The AI Basic Act puts South Korea at the forefront of national AI regulation, including very well-developed guardrails that enforce transparency, ethical control, accountability, and data protection in addition to fostering innovation. It recognises that AI could lead to economic and social advantages, yet also actual risks, particularly when systems are opaque, autonomous, or widely implemented. South Korea has gone holistically in responsible AI governance by integrating human oversight, labelling requirements, risk management planning, and governance infrastructure into law to be emulated by other countries in the years to come.

Sources

‍

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/29/south-korea-world-first-ai-regulation-laws 
• https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/10/artificial-intelligence-and-the-labour-market-in-korea_af668423/68ab1a5a-en.pdf 
• https://asianintelligence.ai/south-korea 
• https://aibasicact.kr/ 
• https://aibusinessweekly.net/p/south-korea-ai-basic-act-takes-effect-jan22-2026 
• https://asiadaily.org/news/12112/ 

‍

Executive Summary

An image featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah is being widely shared on social media. The image is being circulated with the claim that it is a decades-old photograph of the two leaders. A research by the Research Wing of CyberPeace found that the viral image is not authentic and was generated using artificial intelligence (AI).

‍

Claim

‍

On August 14, 2026, a user shared the viral image on Instagram with the caption: “An old photograph of our country's Prime Minister Ji and Home Minister Amit Shah Ji. This duo has changed the history of India. Such leadership comes once in centuries.”

https://www.instagram.com/p/DcAsngdyjQ0/ 

https://archive.ph/X6gyy 

‍

Fact Check:

‍

On closely examining the viral image, we noticed several visual inconsistencies that raised suspicion that it may have been AI-generated. We subsequently analysed the image using Hive Moderation, an AI-detection tool. The tool indicated a 99 per cent probability that the image was AI-generated.

‍

‍

As part of the next stage of our research, we analysed the viral image using another AI-detection tool, AI or Not. The tool's results indicated a 98 per cent probability that the image was AI-generated. 

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

The viral image being circulated as a decades-old photograph of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah is fake. Our research found that the image was generated using AI and is being falsely presented as a genuine old photograph.

‍

There has been a struggle to create legal frameworks that can define where free speech ends and harmful misinformation begins, specifically in democratic societies where the right to free expression is a fundamental value.  Platforms like YouTube, Wikipedia, and Facebook have gained a huge consumer base by focusing on hosting user-generated content. This content includes anything a visitor puts on a website or social media pages. 

The legal and ethical landscape surrounding misinformation is dependent on creating a fine balance between freedom of speech and expression while protecting public interests, such as truthfulness and social stability. This blog is focused on examining the legal risks of misinformation, specifically user-generated content, and the accountability of platforms in moderating and addressing it.

The Rise of Misinformation and Platform Dynamics

Misinformation content is amplified by using algorithmic recommendations and social sharing mechanisms. The intent of spreading false information is closely interwoven with the assessment of user data to identify target groups necessary to place targeted political advertising. The disseminators of fake news have benefited from social networks to reach more people, and from the technology that enables faster distribution and can make it more difficult to distinguish fake from hard news.

Multiple challenges emerge that are unique to social media platforms regulating misinformation while balancing freedom of speech and expression and user engagement. The scale at which content is created and published, the different regulatory standards, and moderating misinformation without infringing on freedom of expression complicate moderation policies and practices.

The impacts of misinformation on social, political, and economic consequences, influencing public opinion, electoral outcomes, and market behaviours underscore the urgent  need for effective regulation, as the consequences of inaction can be profound and far-reaching.

Legal Frameworks and Evolving Accountability Standards

Safe harbour principles allow for the functioning of a free, open and borderless internet. This principle is embodied under the US Communications Decency Act and the Information Technology Act in Sections 230 and 79 respectively.  They play a pivotal role in facilitating the growth and development of the Internet. The legal framework governing misinformation around the world is still in nascent stages. Section 230 of the CDA protects platforms from legal liability relating to harmful content posted on their sites by third parties. It further allows platforms to police their sites for harmful content and protects them from liability if they choose not to.

By granting exemptions to intermediaries, these safe harbour provisions help nurture an online environment that fosters free speech and enables users to freely express themselves without arbitrary intrusions.

A shift in regulations has been observed in recent times. An example is the enactment of the Digital Services Act of 2022 in the European Union.  The Act requires companies having at least 45 million monthly users to create systems to control the spread of misinformation, hate speech and terrorist propaganda, among other things. If not followed through, they risk penalties of up to 6% of the global annual revenue or even a ban in EU countries.

Challenges and Risks for Platforms

There are multiple challenges and risks faced by platforms that surround user-generated misinformation. 

• Moderating user-generated misinformation is a big challenge, primarily because of the quantity of data in question and the speed at which it is generated. It further leads to legal liabilities, operational costs and reputational risks.   
• Platforms can face potential backlash, both in instances of over-moderation or under-moderation. It can be considered as censorship, often overburdening. It can also be considered as insufficient governance in cases where the level of moderation is not protecting the privacy rights of users. 
• Another challenge is more in the technical realm, including the  limitations of AI and algorithmic moderation in detecting nuanced misinformation. It holds out to the need for human oversight to sift through the misinformation that is created by AI-generated content.  

Policy Approaches: Tackling Misinformation through Accountability and Future Outlook

Regulatory approaches to misinformation each present distinct strengths and weaknesses. Government-led regulation establishes clear standards but may risk censorship, while self-regulation offers flexibility yet often lacks accountability. The Indian framework, including the IT Act and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023, aims to enhance data-sharing oversight and strengthen accountability. Establishing clear definitions of misinformation and fostering collaborative oversight involving government and independent bodies can balance platform autonomy with transparency. Additionally, promoting international collaborations and innovative AI moderation solutions is essential for effectively addressing misinformation, especially given its cross-border nature and the evolving expectations of users in today’s digital landscape.

Conclusion

A balance between protecting free speech and safeguarding public interest is needed to navigate the legal risks of user-generated misinformation poses. As digital platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Wikipedia continue to host vast amounts of user content, accountability measures are essential to mitigate the harms of misinformation. Establishing clear definitions and collaborative oversight can enhance transparency and build public trust. Furthermore, embracing innovative moderation technologies and fostering international partnerships will be vital in addressing this cross-border challenge. As we advance, the commitment to creating a responsible digital environment must remain a priority to ensure the integrity of information in our increasingly interconnected world.

References

• https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/should-digital-platform-owners-be-held-liable-for-user-generated-content/article68609693.ece
• https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/should-digital-platform-owners-be-held-liable-for-user-generated-content/article68609693.ece 
• https://hbr.org/2021/08/its-time-to-update-section-230 
• https://www.cnbctv18.com/information-technology/deepfakes-digital-india-act-safe-harbour-protection-information-technology-act-sajan-poovayya-19255261.htm 

‍