#FactCheck - Viral Video of Shah Rukh Khan Is AI-Generated; Users Sharing Misleading Claims

Introduction

‍

In an extensive order of 144 pages passed on May 29, 2026, Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court inter alia affirmed the right of an acquitted or discharged person to reinstate their digital identity. In a batch of more than 30 petitions relating to acquittals, family dispute cases, quashed criminal cases, and parties to proceedings, the petitioners argued that court documents and accusations, having lost their purpose, have kept occupying the search engine, leading to infringement of dignity, privacy, and career and personal life of these individuals. Citing Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as its foundation, the court affirmed that a right to life and personal liberty also includes a right to privacy and to leave behind failed proceedings and adopted wide de-indexing policies, including, where necessary, global de-indexing, thereby ushering in India's "right to be forgotten."

‍

The Constitutional Argument: Article 21 and the Digital Self

‍

The constitutional basis of the right to be forgotten in India rests on the landmark nine-judge bench ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled privacy to be a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and stated informational privacy is a facet of personal liberty. The Supreme Court observed that individuals have an interest in determining how the information concerning them is gathered, disseminated, and accessed.

Building upon this precedent, Justice Sachin Datta held that the right to be forgotten flows naturally from the constitutional guarantee of informational privacy. The judgment represents one of the most significant judicial applications of the Puttaswamy principles, particularly in the context of search engines and online judicial records. Noting the absence of a fully operational statutory framework despite the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, the court exercised its constitutional jurisdiction to protect individuals from enduring digital harm caused by continued public accessibility of outdated or irrelevant personal information.

‍

INDIAN APPLICATION OF THE GLOBAL PRECEDENT

‍

Tracing back the genesis of this right, it lies in the worldwide jurisdiction on privacy, especially the European Court of Justice's landmark ruling of 2014 in Google Spain SL v. AEPD and Mario Costeja Gonzlez, where it ruled that it is within one's power to ask search engines to de-list links that show personal information that is found to be outdated or irrelevant. This led to a legislated right to erasure by the inclusion of Article 17 in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), creating the right throughout the EU. India, on the other hand, saw a slow process of evolution when it came to this right. The Madras High Court acknowledged the right to be forgotten partially in 2021 when it directed a petitioner's name to be deleted from an acquittal judgment, which was affirmed by a Division Bench in 2024. Nevertheless, the above were merely judgments confined to the facts of a particular case. However, the decision of the Delhi High Court dated May 2026 proves to be the benchmark in laying down a comprehensive constitutional framework under Article 21 with guiding principles on when a request for de-linking would be entertained and, if warranted, would be extended throughout the world.

‍

Anatomy of the Framework by the Delhi High Court

‍

While Justice Sachin Datta’s ruling recognizes the right to be forgotten, its actual import lies in devising an operative framework. The Court noted that it would maintain judicial records indefinitely in keeping with open justice principles, but an individual's name may not act as a perennial search key with respect to private entities' search engines. Thus, courts will be allowed to de-index judicial records (except their legal reasoning, findings, and ratio decidendi, which will continue to be accessible) from the names appearing therein from search engines and legal databases. While personally identifying data will be obfuscated, the underlying legal reasoning will not be rendered unusable, as access to unredacted records will continue to be available to courts, parties, and authorities. Such orders are also possible to be effective internationally, rendering avoidance difficult. However, the right cannot be absolute, as it is largely unavailable for convicted individuals (particularly if convicted of offenses against women or children or crimes of breach of trust). Courts must pass a proportionality test in considering the balance between privacy and the public right to know. By stating that masking information has an impact on discoverability, not access, it achieves a reconciliation between informational privacy and open justice so that acquitted accused are not held hostage to past accusations forever in the online age.

‍

The Road to Implementation

‍

However, the judgment presents a thick knot of practical issues, the solution to which may take considerable time to untangle. How will petitions for masking orders be filed by those who need them? Will there be a prescribed form? How will legal database systems such as Indian Kanoon and SCC Online operationalize name-based de-indexing while keeping their vast archives usable for lawyers? More significantly, what kind of legal force will global directions for de-indexing hold over those search engines whose main servers lie outside of Indian territory?

This is not to say the judgment isn't important. It simply presents a predictable, almost mundane set of issues that all ambitious pronouncements on constitutional rights face when translated into the world of administration issues that came up even when the EU was first struggling with enforcing the GDPR in 2018. India now has its framework, and the details of its implementation will undoubtedly come through future rounds of litigation, guidelines, and perhaps even legislation.

What remains abundantly clear, though, is the message conveyed by the Delhi High Court that digital permanency is a crime, especially when it causes the most incriminating of a person's legal actions to follow them perpetually, even long after they have been given due process by the system. As Justice Datta eloquently put it, privacy in the digital age is 'not about secrecy but about an individual's control over the dissemination of personal information.' "Now an element of constitutional law in India, the verdict is a declaration that will resonate long beyond the thirty-odd petitions that called it into being.

‍

‍

Conclusion
‍

The ultimate finding of the 2026 right-to-be-forgotten judgment in Delhi High Court reinforces human dignity in the digital era. The Court has acknowledged the need for acquittals and exonerations to have meaningful implications offline, ensuring an individual is not eternally punished through online searches for alleged wrongdoing. Building on the right to privacy established by K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, informational privacy now stands at the core of constitutional guarantees, and India joins the nations establishing precedents to balance openness with dignity.

‍

Background

‍

Cyber slavery and online trafficking have become alarming challenges in Southeast Asia. Against this backdrop, India successfully rescued 197 of its citizens from Mae Sot in Thailand on November 10, 2025, using two Indian Air Force flights. The evacuees had fled Myanmar’s Myawaddy region in October after intense military operations forced them to escape. This was India’s second rescue effort within a week, following the November 6 mission that brought back 270 nationals from similar conditions. The operations were coordinated by the Indian Embassy in Bangkok and the Consulate in Chiang Mai, with crucial assistance from the Royal Thai Government.

‍

The Operation and Bilateral Cooperation

‍

The operation was carried out with the presence and supervision of Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul of Thailand and Indian Ambassador Nagesh Singh, who were both present at the ceremony in Mae Sot. This way, the two countries have not only proved but also cemented their bond to fight the crimes which were mentioned before and more than that, they have even promised to facilitate communication between their authorities. Prime Minister Charnvirakul thanked India for the quick intervention and added that Thailand would be giving the needed support for the repatriation of the other victims as well.

“Both parties reaffirmed their strong commitment to the fight against cross-border crimes, including cyber scams and human trafficking, in the region and to improving cooperation among the relevant agencies in both countries.”, Embassy of India, Bangkok.

‍

The Cyber Scam Network

‍

The Myawaddy area in Myanmar has made a quick shift to become a hotspot for the entire world of cybercrimes. Moreover, the crimes are especially committed by the organised criminal groups that take advantage of foreign nationals. After the Myanmar military imposed a restriction in late October, over 1,500 people from 28 nations moved to Thailand because of the KK Park cyber hub and other centres being raided.

A UN report (2025) indicated that this fraud activity is part of a larger network that extends the countries populated with very low-tech criminals who target the most naïve, and they are the very ones who end up being tortured. The trafficked persons often belong to the local population or come from neighbouring countries and are recruited with the promise of high salaries as IT or customer service agents, only to be imprisoned in a compound where they are forced to perform phishing, investment fraud, and cryptocurrency scams aimed at the victims all over the globe. These centres operate in border territories having poor governance, easy-to-cross borders, and little police presence, hence making human trafficking a major factor contributing to cybercrime.

‍

India’s Response and Preventive Measures

‍

The Indian Embassy in Thailand worked hand in hand with the Thai government to facilitate bringing back and repatriating the Indian citizens who had entered Thailand illegally when they were escaping Myanmar.

The embassy was far from helpless in the matter. In the case of the embassy's advisory, they suggested to the citizens that:

• It is mandatory to check the authenticity of the job offers and the agents before securing employment in other countries.
• Such employment by means of tourist or visa-free entry permits should be avoided, as such entries allow only for a short-duration visit or tourism.
• Be careful of ads claiming high pay for online or remote work in Southeast Asia.

‍

The embassy reiterated the Government of India’s commitment to ensuring easy access to assistance for citizens overseas and to addressing the growing intersection between cyber fraud and human trafficking.

‍

CyberPeace Analysis and Advisory

‍

The case of Myawaddy demonstrates that cybercrime and human trafficking have grappled to become a complicated global threat. The scam centres gradually come to depend on the trafficked labour of people who are being forced to commit the fraud digitally under coercion. This underlines the requirement for the cybersecurity measures that consider the rights of humans and the protection of the victims, not only the technical defence.

‍

1. Cybercrime–Human Trafficking Convergence: 

Cybercrime has moved up to the level of a human trafficking operation. The unwilling victims of such fraud schemes are scared for their very lives or even more, not of a reliable way out. This situation is such that one cannot tell where cyber exploitation ends and forced labour begins.

2. Cross-Border Enforcement Challenges:

To effectively carry out their unlawful acts, the criminals use legal and jurisdictional loopholes that are present across borders. Dismantling such networks requires the regional cooperation of India, Thailand, and ASEAN countries.

3. Socioeconomic Vulnerability:

The situation with unemployment being stagnant and the public not being educated about the situation makes people, especially the youth, very prone to scams of getting hired overseas. Thus, to prevent this uneducated flocking to the fraudsters, it is necessary to constantly implant in them the knowledge of online literacy and the importance of verification of job offers.

4. Public–Private Coordination: 

The scammers’ mode of operation usually includes online recruitment through social media and encrypted platforms where their victims can be found and contacted. In this regard, cooperation among government institutions, tech platforms, and civil society is imperative to put an end to the operation of these digital trafficking channels.

‍

CyberPeace Expert Advisory

To lessen the possibility of such incidents, CyberPeace suggests the following preventive and policy measures:

‍

Individuals:

‍

• Trust but verify: Before giving your approval to anything, always verify the job offer by official embassy websites or MEA-approved recruiting agencies first.
• Watch out for red flags: If a recruiter offers a very high salary for almost no work, asks for tourist visas, or gives no written contract, be very careful and pull out immediately.
• Protect your documents: Give a trusted person the responsibility of keeping both digital and physical copies of your passport and visa, and also register your travel with the MADAD portal.
• Report if in doubt: If an agent looks suspicious, contact the nearest Indian Embassy or Consulate or report it to cybercrime.gov.in or the 1930 Helpline.

‍

Policymakers and Agencies:

‍

• Strengthen Bilateral Task Forces: Set up armed forces of cyber and human trafficking enforcement units in South and Southeast Asian countries.
• Support Regional Awareness Campaigns: In addition to targeted advisories in local languages, the most vulnerable job seekers in Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities should also receive such awareness in their languages.
• Overseas Employment Advertising should be regulated: All digital job postings should be made to meet transparency standards and fraudulent recruitment should be punished with heavy fines.
• Invest in Digital Forensics and Intelligence Sharing: Create common databases for monitoring international cybercriminal groups.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The return of Indian citizens from Thailand represents a significant humanitarian and diplomatic milestone and highlights that cybercrime, though carried out through digital channels, remains deeply human in nature. International cooperation, well-informed citizens, and a rights-based cybersecurity approach are the minimum requirements for a global campaign against the new breed of cybercrime that is characterised by fraud and trafficking working hand in hand. CyberPeace reminds everyone that digital vigilance, verification, and collaboration across borders are the most effective ways to prevent online abuse and such crimes.

Reference

‍

• https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/197-indians-repatriated-from-thailand-by-special-indian-air-force-flights-9611934
• https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-airlifts-citizens-who-worked-in-myanmar-cybercrime-hub-from-thailand/article70264322.ece
• https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/attach/03-List-4-2024.pdf

‍

‍Introduction

‍

The misinformation crisis has evolved from being merely an abstract risk to a clear-cut and measurable danger to individuals, families, institutions and the whole information ecosystem. The recent death hoax with the famous actor Dharmendra is a perfect illustration of how the monster of falsehoods rises, conquers the world and does damage before the mechanisms of correction have a chance to operate. The first week of November 2025 saw the first wave of reports from different social media accounts and even some online news outlets that claimed Dharmendra had died at the age of 89. The news travelled like wildfire, causing confusion, grief and emotional suffering in large circles of fans, one could say the whole world. But then, the family came to the scene with the loudest, clearest, and most conclusive denial of them all. This case is not a one-time event. It is part of a cycle of misinformation that goes through the stages from one unverified claim to the next due to the emotional value, the virality of platforms, and the accelerating online engagement.

‍

How One Wrong Post Can Create Worry and Fear

‍

This kind of false news spreads fast on social media because people share emotional posts without checking the source, and automated accounts often repeat the same claim which makes it look true. Such hoaxes create fear, sadness and stress for fans, and they place sudden pressure on the family who must deal with public worry at a time when they need calm and privacy. The message shared by Hema Malini who is the wife of the actor shows how hurtful and careless misinformation can be, and it reminds everyone that even one false post can create real emotional damage for many people.

‍

‍

Why This Hoax Spread So Quickly

‍

1. Sensationalism Drives Engagement: Rumours regarding the passing of a public figure, particularly someone who is universally loved, cause an immediate outburst of feelings. Such news is practically taken for granted by the online public, who are very likely to share it, most of the time without checking its authenticity, which, in turn, leads to viral spread. 
2. Very Fast Weaving-in on social media: Social media networks are very much made for swift sharing. Long before the official sources were able to either confirm or dismiss the matter, posts, reels, and messages ripped through the networks.
3. Digital Users Not Verifying Source: A large part of the audience depends on screenshots, forwards, and unverified posts for keeping up with the news. This opens a very nice environment for the spreading of hoaxes. 
4. Weak Verification Protocols: Although there have been measures to inform the public about misinformation, most news companies still give priority to the speed of reporting rather than its correctness, though not all the time, especially for the more entertaining and attractive topics like the health or death of famous people. 
5. Algorithmic Amplification Risks: The engagement is mainly driven by algorithms that bring to the surface the posts that evoke strong emotions. In a way, it is very unfair because the false or sensational claims are getting in front at the same time as the corrective updates, hence, the public is getting misled. In the absence of algorithmic safeguards, misinformation is on the rise and becoming stronger.

‍

Best Practices For Users: 

‍

• Make sure to verify before sharing, especially if the topic is about health or death. 
• Get updates by following official accounts rather than through sharing of viral forwards. 
• Be aware of the emotional manipulation tactics used in misleading information. 

Conclusion

‍

The rumour surrounding Dharmendra's death is yet another example that misinformation, whether promptly corrected or not, can still inflict distress, cause loss of trust and damage to reputation. It also emphasises the need for stronger information governance, responsible digital journalism, and platform intervention mechanisms as a matter of urgency. This incident, from clicks to consequences, points to a basic truth: misinformation in the digital age is quicker to spread than facts, and the responsibility of putting a stop to it falls on all the stakeholders’ platforms, media, and users.

‍

References

‍

• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/esha-deol-and-hema-malini-dismiss-dharmendras-fake-death-news-relieved-fans-pray-for-actors-speedy-recovery-aap-jld-se-jld-apne-ghar-aye/articleshow/125242843.cms
• https://www.altnews.in/media-misreport-bollywood-actor-dharmendra-hasnt-passed-away-yet/
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/dharmendra-death-news-bollywoods-veeru-and-he-man-passes-away-at-89/articleshow/125238900.cms

‍