AI-Made Fake Videos and Unverified Messages Trigger Clashes in Ujjain and Violence at Two Punjab Universities

The news

Ujjain and Jalandhar. Rumours on social media, including AI-generated videos, set off violence in two States, The Indian Express reports. In Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh, clashes broke out on Monday, September 28, between police and a crowd over the removal of a portion of the Shahi Masjid that falls along a road being widened ahead of the 2028 Simhastha, the Kumbh fair held in Ujjain. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had approved the partial demolition on September 9. The Ujjain Municipal Corporation said road-widening had affected about 80 religious places, and portions of 10 temples and a mosque had already been removed; Chief Minister Mohan Yadav had demolished structures outside his ancestral home. Police mobilised 2,500 personnel, and after night-long talks the City Qazi said the matter had been resolved by mutual agreement. On Monday morning stones were pelted, and police used tear gas and lathicharge. Police say a disgruntled faction of the mosque committee mobilised the crowd and some younger members were misled by AI-generated videos that falsely showed the structure being demolished. “One of these videos included a JCB demolishing the entire mosque, which was completely false,” Superintendent of Police Pradeep Sharma said. By afternoon the High Court, hearing a writ appeal, was told the Muslim side had agreed to cooperate and disposed of the petition; by evening committee members were themselves demolishing the portion. Police have registered five FIRs against five social media pages or influencers, arrested 15 people, reported more than 100 Instagram accounts, and registered an FIR on the City Qazi’s complaint. The row is also a dispute between two factions over who administers the mosque’s Waqf property. In Punjab, within about 27 hours and 140 km, two private universities saw protests triggered by unverified claims. At Chitkara University in Rajpura, Patiala, hundreds of students gathered late on September 25 after posts claimed two girl students were missing; police vehicles were damaged. At about 2 a.m. on September 27, a message at Lovely Professional University (LPU), Phagwara, claimed a student had been raped in a girls’ hostel; the protest turned into arson and vandalism, and students blocked National Highway-44. A senior officer told the IE there was so far no evidence for the claims at either university; checks at Chitkara found no missing student. The Hindu reports that police registered an FIR against unknown persons and set up a special investigation team at LPU, that the university suspended classes for 10 days, and that three women students said LPU posted a video of them dismissing the rape claim without their consent. The syllabus link is GS3 on the role of social media in internal security and GS1 on communalism.

Static syllabus linkage

1. The IT Act gives the government blocking powers and makes platforms’ legal immunity conditional. Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 lets the Union government direct the blocking of online content in the interest of sovereignty and integrity, security of the State, public order, or to prevent incitement to a cognisable offence, following the procedure in the 2009 Blocking Rules. Section 79 gives intermediaries such as social media platforms ‘safe harbour’ from liability for users’ content, provided they observe due diligence and act on lawful orders. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 spell out that due diligence. Per a PIB release, amendments notified on February 10, 2026 require platforms to ensure clear labelling and traceable metadata for permissible AI-generated content and to remove unlawful content within three hours of a court order.
2. Shreya Singhal drew the line between free speech and online incitement. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, which punished ‘grossly offensive’ or ‘menacing’ online messages, as vague and violative of Article 19(1)(a). The Court held that only speech amounting to incitement, not mere discussion or advocacy, can be restricted on grounds of public order under Article 19(2). It upheld Section 69A because it carries procedural safeguards and reasoned orders. It also read Section 79 to mean that a platform must take down content only on a court order or government notification, not on private complaints alone.
3. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita punishes rumour-mongering and promoting enmity. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which replaced the Indian Penal Code from July 1, 2024, carries forward the offence of making or circulating statements, false information, rumours or reports with intent to cause public mischief or to incite one group against another; this is Section 353, the successor of Section 505 of the IPC, and it now expressly covers electronic means. Section 196 of the BNS, the successor of Section 153A of the IPC, punishes promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language and similar grounds. Section 103(2) of the BNS makes murder by a group of five or more persons on grounds such as race, caste, community, sex or personal belief a distinct offence, which is how the new code addresses mob lynching.
4. Tehseen Poonawalla set out duties for district administrations against mob violence. In Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court held that the State has a duty to prevent mob violence and lynching, and issued preventive, remedial and punitive directions. States were to appoint a senior police officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, as nodal officer in each district, identify areas prone to such incidents, and act against the dissemination of irresponsible and explosive messages on social media. The Court said police officers who fail to act would face departmental action. These directions remain the template for district-level preparedness against rumour-driven violence.

Why UPSC loves this

1. GS3 names social media as an internal security challenge. The GS3 syllabus explicitly lists challenges to internal security through communication networks and the role of media and social networking sites in internal security challenges. UPSC has asked about the role of social media in spreading communal tension and the regulation of fake news. AI-generated video is the newest form of the same problem.
2. GS1 covers communalism and GS4 covers the ethics of information. GS1 includes communalism, regionalism and secularism, and GS4 case studies often place an officer in a tense situation fuelled by rumour. This story gives a model of good practice, early negotiation and verification, as well as a model of failure, where officials were a step behind the rumour.
3. Prelims tests the IT Act and the landmark free-speech cases. Sections 66A, 69A and 79 of the IT Act and the Shreya Singhal judgment are frequent Prelims material. The 2026 labelling amendment for AI-generated content is a likely new question.

Analysis

1. The rumour did not create the grievance; it weaponised one that already existed. In Ujjain there was a genuine dispute: a road project affecting some 80 religious places and a quarrel between two factions over control of the mosque’s Waqf property. At the Punjab universities, officers speak of a growing discord between students and managements. A fake video works only on people already primed to distrust. That means the first defence is not technology but the credibility of institutions: an administration that explains its decisions openly and in advance leaves less room for a false story.
2. Ujjain shows that consultation works, but only if it reaches everyone before the rumour does. The Ujjain administration did several things right. It obtained a court order, showed even-handedness by removing temple portions and the Chief Minister’s own ancestral structures, and negotiated through the night until the City Qazi announced agreement. Yet a section of young people, reached by a video rather than by the negotiators, came out anyway. Agreements made with community leaders must be communicated directly to the wider public, including through the same social media channels, at the same speed as the rumour.
3. FIRs after the event are necessary but cannot be the main tool. Five FIRs, 15 arrests and more than 100 reported accounts signal that spreading such content has consequences. But criminal law acts after the violence. Prevention needs rapid verification: police social media cells that can issue a clear denial, with evidence, within the hour, and platforms obliged to act quickly on AI-generated content that incites violence. The February 2026 amendments requiring labelling and faster takedown help, but a labelled fake still spreads in closed messaging groups where labels are easily stripped.
4. Campus riots show that institutional silence feeds rumour, and institutional spin feeds it too. Students at Chitkara demanded CCTV footage and answers; at LPU the message alleged that the university ignored complaints. When institutions are seen as opaque, students believe the worst. LPU’s response, posting a video of three women students dismissing the claim without their consent, deepened the problem by violating their dignity and privacy. The right approach is a standing, trusted grievance mechanism with student representation and police verification that is quick and transparent, not public relations.
5. Counter-view: tough speech policing can chill legitimate protest. Aggressive action against ‘rumour’ can slide into punishing criticism, and Shreya Singhal warned against vague offences. Students raising safety concerns and communities questioning a demolition are exercising legitimate rights. The line must be drawn at knowingly false content that incites violence, like a fabricated video of a full demolition, not at protest or criticism itself. Precision in charging, and procedural safeguards in blocking, protect both public order and free speech.

Administrator's brainstorm