Galgotias University was asked to vacate its stall at the AI Impact Summit 2026 after controversy erupted over its display of a robotic dog that critics alleged was a commercially available Chinese product rather than an original invention. Responding to the row, the government clarified that the action was taken to prevent controversy and misinformation at the event, not as a formal judgment on the university’s technical claims.
The university had showcased a robotic dog named “Orion,” presenting it as a creation developed by its Centre of Excellence. However, online observers soon pointed out similarities between the displayed machine and the Unitree Go2, a robotic dog manufactured by Chinese company Unitree Robotics. As criticism intensified on social media, organisers at Bharat Mandapam reportedly cut power to the university’s pavilion and requested its representatives to leave the exhibition area.
S. Krishnan, Secretary at the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, said exhibitions at the summit were expected to showcase genuine work and should not become sources of controversy. He emphasised that misinformation and plagiarism could not be encouraged and that the decision to remove the stall was aimed at maintaining the credibility of the event rather than determining whether the claims were technically accurate or not. According to him, authorities chose to act because they did not want disputes surrounding exhibits to overshadow the broader objectives of the summit.
Krishnan also clarified that the AI Impact Summit functions as an exhibition platform rather than a certification mechanism. He noted that organisers generally rely on participants’ representations when products are demonstrated and do not conduct technical verification unless items are intended for commercial sale or public deployment. Requiring certification for every exhibit, he said, could risk discouraging innovation and participation.
Following the backlash, Galgotias University issued a public apology, stating that the individual managing the pavilion had provided factually incorrect information without authorisation. The institution said the staff member was unaware of the technical origins of the product and had spoken inaccurately in enthusiasm while interacting with the media. The university denied any institutional intent to misrepresent the robot and reaffirmed its commitment to academic integrity, transparency, and responsible representation of research. It added that it vacated the premises in accordance with the organisers’ request.
The episode quickly triggered political reactions. Opposition leaders criticised the display, calling it damaging to the credibility of the summit and India’s technological image. CPI(M) Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas alleged that the university enjoyed political patronage and questioned how a commercially available foreign product could be presented as an in-house innovation. Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Priyanka Chaturvedi described the incident as embarrassing and suggested stricter penalties should be considered. Trinamool Congress MP Saket Gokhale also raised questions about government oversight and sought clarification from IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw regarding the controversy.
The incident has sparked broader discussion about verification standards at technology exhibitions and the balance between encouraging innovation and ensuring accurate representation of technological achievements at high-profile national events.
