The prestigious India AI Impact Summit 2026 at Bharat Mandapam was intended to be a showcase of indigenous technological prowess, yet it descended into a chaotic spectacle involving a Chinese robotic dog, a viral interview, and a public blame game. Galgotias University, a private institution based in Greater Noida, found itself at the center of a national embarrassment after its display of a quadruped robot named “Orion” was exposed as a commercially available unit from China, leading to its unceremonious exit from the expo.
The controversy erupted on the summit’s second day when a video interview featuring Professor Neha Singh, the university’s representative, went viral. In the footage broadcast by DD News, Singh confidently introduced the machine. She stated that “Orion” had been “developed by the Centre of Excellence at Galgotias University” and was part of a massive investment in artificial intelligence. She further claimed the robot was capable of surveillance and roamed their campus freely. Her assertions, delivered with palpable excitement, were quickly dismantled by internet sleuths who identified the device not as an Indian innovation but as the Unitree Go2, a Chinese product available online for approximately ₹2.5 lakh.
As the digital backlash intensified, the situation on the ground at Bharat Mandapam deteriorated. Government officials, wary of the message being sent at a summit headlined by global leaders, intervened decisively. Sources confirm the Centre instructed the university to vacate its stall, later issuing a stern warning that “misinformation can’t be encouraged” and that exhibitors must strictly refrain from displaying third-party products as their own inventions. The university’s stall was subsequently dismantled, and power was cut, marking a humiliating end to their participation.
In the aftermath, the university engaged in a rapid damage control exercise that shifted the focus entirely onto Professor Singh. After initially issuing a vague statement about “building minds” (written by AI, no less), the administration released a second, more pointed apology. They characterized Singh as “ill-informed” and explicitly attributed the false claims to her “enthusiasm of being on camera.” The official statement noted that she was unaware of the product’s technical origins and had spoken without authorization. This attempt to distance the institution from its own spokesperson drew further criticism for scapegoating a faculty member for what many perceived as an institutional oversight, given that Prof. Singh was the public face of the University at the Summit even after the fiasco erupted.
Professor Singh, who was later spotted with an “Open to Work” badge on her LinkedIn profile, offered a defense that was both apologetic and cryptic. Speaking to reporters, she attributed the fiasco to the “euphoria and rush” of the event, insisting there was no malicious intent to deceive. She argued that her words were misinterpreted due to the chaotic environment. “I could have been more eloquent,” she admitted, before adding a philosophical spin to the controversy by amusingly stating, “Your six could be somebody else’s nine; that is what happened.” She maintained that the robot was intended for research and development purposes, a claim that did little to quell the questions regarding academic integrity that now surround the university’s department. The incident stands as a stark reminder of the perils of overstatement in an age of instant verification and internet sleuths on the hunt for the next big fib to debunk.
