#FactCheck : Old video of Ranveer Singh at Kashi Vishwanath Temple falsely linked to ‘Dhurandhar 2’ success

The recent Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, that came into force in August, has been one of the most widely anticipated regulations in the digital entertainment industry. Among provisions such as promoting esports and licensing of online gaming, the legislation notably introduces a blanket ban on real-money gaming (RMG). The rationale behind this was to reduce its addictive effects, protect minors, and limit the circulation of black-money. However, in reality, the Act has spawned apprehension about the legislative process, regulatory redundancy, and unintended consequences that can shift users and revenue to offshore operators.

‍

From Debate to Prohibition: How the Act was Passed 

‍

The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act was passed as a central law, providing the earlier fragmented state laws on online betting and gambling with an overarching framework. Proponents argue that, among other provisions, some kind of unified national framework was needed to deal with the scale of online betting due to its detrimental impact on young users. The current Act is a direct transition to criminalisation rather than the swings of self-regulation and partial restrictions used during the previous decade of incremental experiments in regulation. Stakeholders in the industry believe that this type of sudden, blanket action creates uncertainty and erodes confidence in the system in the long run. Further, critics have pointed out that the Bill was passed without adequate Parliamentary deliberation. A question has been raised about whether procedural safeguards were upheld. 

‍

Prohibition of Online RMG

‍

Within the Indian context, a distinction has long been drawn between games of skill and games of chance, with the latter, like a lottery or a casino, being severely prohibited under state laws, whereas the former, like rummy or fantasy sports, have generally been allowed after being recognized as skill-based by court authorities. The Online Gaming Act of 2025 abolishes this distinction on the internet, thus banning all RMG actions that include cash transactions, regardless of skill or chance. The act also criminalises the advertising, facilitation, and hosting of such sites, thereby penalizing offshore operators with an Indian customer focus, and subjecting their payment gateways, app stores, and advertisers under its jurisdiction to penalties. 

‍

The Problem of Overlap

‍

One potential issue that the Act presents is its overlap with the existing laws. The IT Rules 2023 mandate intermediaries in the gaming sector to appoint compliance officers, submit monthly reports, and undergo due diligence. The new Act introduces a three-level classification of games, whereas the advisories of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) under the Consumer Protection Act treat online betting as an unfair trade practice. 

This multiplicity of regulations builds a maze where different Ministries and state governments have overlapping jurisdiction.  Policy experts caution that such an overlap can create enforcement challenges, punish players who act within the law, and leave offshore malefactors undetected.  

‍

Unintended Consequences: Driving Users Offshore

‍

Outright prohibition will hardly ever remove demand; it will only push it out. Offshore sites have taken advantage of the situation as Indian operators like Dream11 shut down their money games after the ban. It has already been reported that there is aggressive advertising by foreign betting companies that are not registered in India, most of which have backend infrastructure that cannot be regulated by the Act (Storyboard18).

This diversion of users to unregulated markets has two main risks. First, Indian players are deprived of the consumer protection offered to them in local regulation, and their data can be sent to suspicious foreign organizations. Second, the government loses control over the money flow that can be transferred via informal channels or cryptocurrencies or other obscure systems. Industry analysts are alerting that such developments may only worsen the issue of black-money instead of solving it (IGamingBusiness).

‍

Advertising, Age Gating, and Digital Rights

‍

The Act has also strengthened advertisement regulations, aligning with advisories issued by the Advertising Standards Council of India, which prohibits the targeting of minors. However, critics believe that the application remains inadequately enforced, and children can with comparative ease access unregulated overseas applications. In the absence of complementary digital literacy programs and strong parental controls, these limitations can be effectively superficial instead of real. 

Privacy advocates also warn that frequent prompts, vague messages, or invasive surveillance can weaken the digital rights of users instead of strengthening them. Overregulation has also been found to create banner blindness in global contexts where users ignore warnings without first clearly understanding them.

‍

Enforcement Challenges

‍

The Act puts a lot of responsibilities on many stakeholders, including the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Platforms like Google Play and Apple App Store are expected to verify government-approved lists of compliant gaming apps and remove non-compliant or banned ones, as directed by the MIB and the RBI. Although this pressure may motivate intermediaries to collaborate, it may also have a risk of overreach when it is applied unequally or in a political way.

According to the experts, the solution should be underpinned by technology itself. Artificial intelligence can be used to identify illegal advertisements, track illegal gaming in children, and trace payment streams. At the same time, the regulators should be able to issue final lists of either compliant or non-compliant applications to advise the consumers and intermediaries alike. Without such practical provisions, enforcement risks remaining patchy.

‍

Online Gaming Rules

‍

On 1 October 2025, the government issued a draft of the Online Gaming Rules in accordance with the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act. The regulations focus on the creation of the compliance frameworks, define the classification of the allowed gaming activities, and prescribe grievance-redressal mechanisms aiming to promote the protection of the players and procedural transparency. However, the draft does not revisit or soften the existing blanket prohibition on real-money gaming (RMG) and, hence, the questions about the effectiveness of enforcement and regulatory clarity remain open (Times of India, 2025).

‍

Protecting Consumers Without Stifling Innovation

‍

The ban highlights a larger conflict, i.e., the protection of the vulnerable users without stifling an industry that has traditionally contributed to innovation, jobs, and the collection of tax revenue. Online gaming has significantly added to the GST collections, and the sudden shakeup brings fiscal concerns (Reuters).

Several legal objections to the Act have already been brought, asking whether the Act is constitutional, especially as to whether the restrictions are proportional to the right to trade. The outcome of such cases will define the future trajectory of the digital economy of India (Reuters).

‍

Way Forward

‍

Instead of outright prohibition, a more balanced approach that incorporates regulation and consumer protection is suggested by the experts. Key measures could include:

‍

• A definite difference between games of skill and games of chance, with proportionate regulation.
• Age confirmation and campaign against online illiteracy to protect the underage population.
• Enhanced advertising and payments compliance requirements and enforceable non-compliance penalty.

• Coordinated oversight among different ministries to prevent duplication and regulatory struggle.
• Leveraging AI and fintech to track illegal financial activities (black money flows) and developing innovation.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The Online Gaming Act 2025 addresses social issues, such as addiction, monetary risk, and child safety, that require governance interventions.  However, the path it follows to this end, that of total prohibition,  is more likely to spawn a new set of issues instead of providing solutions because it will send consumers to offshore sites, undermine consumer rights, and slow innovation.

For India, the real challenge is not whether to prohibit online money gaming but how to create a balanced, transparent, and enforceable framework that protects users while fostering a responsible gaming ecosystem. India can reduce the adverse consequences of online betting without keeping the industry in the shadows with better coordination, reasonable use of technology, and balanced protection.

‍

References:

• India's Dream11, top gaming apps halt money-based games after ban
• India online gambling ban could drive punters to black market
• Offshore betting firms with backend ops in India not covered by online gaming law
• The Great Gamble: India’s Online Gaming Ban, The GST Battle, And What Lies Ahead.
• Game Over for Online Money Games? An Analysis of the Online Gaming Act 2025
• Government gambles heavily on prohibiting online money gaming
• Online gaming regulation: New rules to take effect from October 1; government stresses consultative approach with industry

‍

Executive Summary:

‍

A video circulating on social media falsely claims to show Indian Air Chief Marshal AP Singh admitting that India lost six jets and a Heron drone during Operation Sindoor in May 2025. It has been  revealed that the footage had been digitally manipulated by inserting an AI generated voice clone of Air Chief Marshal Singh into his recent speech, which was streamed live on August 9, 2025.

‍

Claim:

‍

A viral video  (archived video) (another link) shared by an X user stating in the caption “  Breaking: Finally Indian Airforce Chief admits India did lose 6 Jets and one Heron UAV during May 7th Air engagements.”  which is actually showing the Air Chief Marshal has admitted the aforementioned loss during Operation Sindoor.

‍

Fact Check:

‍

By conducting a reverse image search on key frames from the video, we found a clip which was posted by ANI Official X handle , after watching the full clip we didn't find any mention of the aforementioned alleged claim. 

‍

‍

On further research we found an extended version of the video in the Official YouTube Channel of ANI which was published on 9th August 2025. At the 16th Air Chief Marshal L.M. Katre Memorial Lecture in Marathahalli, Bengaluru, Air Chief Marshal AP Singh did not mention any loss of six jets or a drone in relation to the conflict with Pakistan. The discrepancies observed in the viral clip suggest that portions of the audio may have been digitally manipulated.

‍

‍

The audio in the viral video, particularly the segment at the 29:05 minute mark alleging the loss of six Indian jets, appeared to be manipulated and displayed noticeable inconsistencies in tone and clarity.

‍

Conclusion:

‍

The viral video claiming that Air Chief Marshal AP Singh admitted to the loss of six jets and a Heron UAV during Operation Sindoor is misleading. A reverse image search traced the footage that no such remarks were made. Further an extended version on ANI’s official YouTube channel confirmed that, during the 16th Air Chief Marshal L.M. Katre Memorial Lecture, no reference was made to the alleged losses. Additionally, the viral video’s audio, particularly around the 29:05 mark, showed signs of manipulation with noticeable inconsistencies in tone and clarity.

• Claim: Viral Video Claiming IAF Chief Acknowledged Loss of Jets Found Manipulated
• Claimed On: Social Media
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

‍

Introduction

‍

‍"Artificial Intelligence may be the new charlatan in town"

‍

There is something almost wonderfully Indian about our current relationship with artificial intelligence. We are simultaneously afraid of it, fascinated by it, regulating it, funding it, using it and occasionally asking it to write the regulation meant to control it. In contrast, artificial intelligence seems to have figured out the oldest trick in the book: create an issue and then figure out how to solve it. Both the deepfake and the deepfake detector can be produced by it. It has the ability to  both generate and detect false information. It can both authenticate and mimic your voice. It can create a fake image and determine if it is fake. The machine ,in other words, is increasingly becoming both the burglar and the security system. We now refer to this as innovation.  Perhaps nothing better captures this peculiar moment than India’s most recent regulatory actions. The government has strengthened regulations pertaining to synthetic content such as requiring labelling and expediting the removal of illegal AI-generated information. After a legitimate government or court order, platforms are expected to take action within three hours, significantly reducing the removal window for some content. It took years for the internet to become ubiquitous. There are  now three hours for the law to become transitory. This is the first great paradox of AI governance. Technology operates at the speed of creation. Law operates at the speed of procedure. The citizen is seated between the two. 

‍

The Age of the Digital Double

‍

Indian courts are already dealing with this issue in more tangible ways. Cricket player Yuvraj Singh recently received relief from the Delhi High Court in a personality-rights case involving deepfakes created by AI and unlawful use of his identity. Courts have intervened against AI-generated and modified content in similar cases involving other public individuals. As a result, the law faces an odd dilemma: What exactly belongs to a person?  In the past, humans used comparatively stable identifiers to understand identity, such as a name, portrait, signature, or voice. That simplicity has been disrupted by AI. You can now detach your face from your body. You may separate your throat from your voice. It is possible to distinguish between your emotions and your expressions. It is possible to fabricate your political beliefs without engaging in politics. The legitimacy of a person's existence is being requested to be protected by the law, not just their property which is a far more difficult issue.

‍

When Artificial Intelligence Enters the Courtroom

‍

The irony becomes richer when AI enters the courtroom itself. Courts are creating guidelines for the use of  AI in the courtroom, just as they are being challenged to decide what happens when AI creates reality outside of it. Human primacy, accountability, transparency, data protection and judicial independence are highlighted in the Supreme Court’s proposed rules on the use of AI in courts. After all, there is one situation in which the justification that “the AI said so” should never be accepted. A hallucinated judgment is more than just a mistake in technology. It may turn into a mistake of authority in a legal system. A precedent can be confidently created by a machine. It can be cited with confidence by a lawyer and maybe then brought before a court for consideration.  All of a sudden, we have created a flawless little bureaucratic ecology where everyone has been duped despite no one's intention to do so. It's not inevitable that machines will turn malevolent, but rather that people will grow unduly reliant on machines that seem authoritative.

‍

The Great AI Contradiction

‍

We asked, "What can AI do?" for years.What can AI do for us, we then enquired? We are starting to wonder what AI might do to humans. The following query ought to be more challenging: When it does, who is at fault? Because AI systems don't cleanly fit into the legal frames we inherited, that question becomes very challenging. Developers, model providers, data providers, deployers, platforms, and end users are among them. There may occasionally be a middleman. There is a victim occasionally. Surprisingly, there can occasionally be multiple roles at once. This point is made in a recent working paper on AI and consumer rights in India: while current consumer protection laws may apply to AI harms, the conventional division of accountability among manufacturers, sellers, and service providers becomes challenging when AI systems involve a much more dispersed value chain.

‍

The Misunderstanding on AI’s Intelligence

‍

This is the point at which our sense for policy sometimes fails. We are concerned that AI will develop superintelligence. The more imminent threat can be much less dramatic. It is not necessary for AI to surpass human intelligence in order to wreak great harm. All it needs to do is become more convincing, quicker, and less expensive than human verification. Artificial general intelligence is not necessary for a fraudster to con an elderly person. A supercomputer is not necessary for a political manipulator to create a candidate's voice. A stalker can create an intimate deepfake without being conscious. A pupil can file a hallucinated case citation without the assistance of a robot attorney. Ordinary human wrongdoing magnified by incredible technical magnitude is what it is.

‍

The Real Test of AI Governance

‍

The number of standards we create, the number of committees we form, or the number of compliance boxes platforms check will not ultimately determine the success of AI regulation. Something considerably simpler will be used to measure it. Can the legal system advise a regular citizen where to go, what to do, and who will be held accountable when an AI system impersonates, defrauds, surveils, manipulates, or denies them a service?

The presence of accountability following failure, not the absence of failure.

Sometimes the most advanced piece of technology in the room is still an old-fashioned institution: a law that works, a regulator that responds, a court that understands the technology and a human being willing to take responsibility. Because if AI is going to be both the fire and the fire extinguisher, we should at least make sure that someone other than the machine owns the building.

‍

References

‍

• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/government-tightens-deepfake-rules-mandates-ai-content-labels-and-three-hour-takedown-timeline/articleshow/133011656.cms?utm_source=chatgpt.com&from=mdr 
• https://theleaflet.in/law-and-technology/explained-the-supreme-court-of-indias-draft-regulations-for-use-of-artificial-intelligence-in-courts-2026 
• https://www.bananaip.com/intellepedia/yuvraj-singh-personality-rights-ai-deepfakes-delhi-high-court/

‍