Authorities directed Galgotias University to vacate its exhibition stall at the India AI Impact Summit 2026 in New Delhi after a robotic dog showcased as part of its innovation efforts was identified as a commercially available Chinese product.
Government sources confirmed that the decision followed scrutiny over the presentation of the robot, which had been introduced under a new name during the summit. When the stall was not dismantled immediately, power supply to the pavilion was cut and barricades were placed around the area, according to reports from the venue.
The incident unfolded publicly and rapidly, with videos circulating online within hours of the demonstration.
The Robot at the Centre
At the heart of the controversy was the Unitree Go2, developed by Chinese company Unitree Robotics.
The quadruped robot is marketed globally for research, inspection and education applications. It is widely available for purchase, including in India, at a price range of approximately ₹2 lakh to ₹3 lakh depending on configuration.
At the summit, the device was introduced under the name “Orion” and linked to the university’s Centre of Excellence. Attendees later posted images and videos online comparing the robot to the publicly listed Unitree Go2 model, noting identical structural design and specifications.
In addition to the robotic dog, the Galgotias University stall displayed a soccer drone identified by observers as the Striker V3 ARF platform produced by South Korean manufacturer Helsel. The drone also appeared to be a ready-to-fly kit available commercially.
The rapid identification of both products intensified scrutiny over how they had been presented at the summit.
A National Platform
The India AI Impact Summit 2026 was held at Bharat Mandapam in New Delhi and inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The summit is positioned as one of India’s flagship artificial intelligence events, bringing together senior government officials, global technology companies, academic institutions and startups. The gathering aims to highlight domestic AI capabilities, attract international investment and position India as a major player in the global technology ecosystem.
Given the high-profile setting, any controversy involving representation of innovation carries amplified significance.
Government Reaction
Senior officials associated with the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology stated that national platforms must showcase authentic work and that misleading representations would not be tolerated.
Government sources confirmed that Galgotias University was instructed to vacate its stall after the matter gained traction online. Reports from the venue indicated that electricity to the pavilion was disconnected after the directive was not immediately followed.
Officials emphasised that corrective steps were taken once the issue was brought to their attention. The rest of the summit proceeded as scheduled, with major announcements relating to artificial intelligence investments, research collaborations and policy initiatives.
The swift action underscored the sensitivity surrounding claims of indigenous innovation at government-backed events.
University Clarification
Following the backlash, representatives of Galgotias University issued a public clarification.
Faculty members including Professor Neha Singh and Dr. Aishwarya Shrivastava stated that the robotic dog had been procured as a teaching and research tool. They said the university had not manufactured the hardware and had not intended to mislead attendees.
In its statement, the university described the robot as part of its infrastructure designed to allow students to experiment with artificial intelligence applications. It characterised the device as a “classroom in motion” used for training and research.
University officials suggested that confusion may have arisen from language used during demonstrations. They argued that references to development related to software experimentation and AI application building rather than hardware fabrication.
However, footage circulating online appeared to show the robot being introduced as a development of the Centre of Excellence. A Community Note was later attached to the university’s clarification post on X, pointing to inconsistencies between the original presentation and the subsequent explanation.
Questions of Attribution
Reports also noted that the presenter at the stall was from the communications department rather than a robotics engineering division. This detail prompted discussion about internal coordination and messaging.
In academic and research settings worldwide, it is common for institutions to purchase commercially available robotic platforms and build proprietary software systems on top of them. The distinction between hardware manufacturing and AI software development is well understood within research communities.
Experts say the issue in this case appears to centre on attribution and clarity. When hardware is sourced externally, clear acknowledgment is considered essential, particularly at high-visibility national events.
The difference between “developed by” and “developed using” can carry significant weight in public forums.
Political Reaction
The controversy also triggered political responses. Opposition leaders criticised the episode as embarrassing and questioned oversight mechanisms at a summit intended to project India’s technological progress.
Critics argued that exhibitor claims should be vetted more rigorously before being showcased at government-backed platforms. Officials, meanwhile, maintained that swift action demonstrated accountability.
The incident added an unexpected layer of controversy to a summit otherwise focused on policy announcements and industry partnerships.
Digital Scrutiny Era
The speed with which the controversy escalated reflects the realities of digital verification in the modern technology landscape.
Product images, technical specifications and pricing data are widely accessible online. Within minutes of the demonstration, users were able to compare the exhibited robot with publicly available models and share side-by-side analyses.
In previous decades, such discrepancies may have remained confined to a trade floor. Today, social media platforms allow real-time scrutiny that can shape national narratives within hours.
For institutions, this environment leaves little room for ambiguity.
India’s AI Ambition
India has been actively promoting itself as an emerging leader in artificial intelligence, with investments in research infrastructure, semiconductor policy and startup ecosystems.
The India AI Impact Summit was designed to reinforce that ambition. Global firms participated, and significant investment commitments were discussed.
Against that backdrop, the controversy involving Galgotias University became more than a campus-level issue. It touched on broader themes of credibility, transparency and national positioning in the global technology race.
The Road Ahead
For Galgotias University, the immediate challenge is reputational. Demonstrating verifiable research outputs, publishing peer-reviewed work and maintaining transparency in future exhibitions will be central to rebuilding trust.
For policymakers, the episode may prompt clearer exhibitor guidelines and verification processes at future national technology events.
The removal of the stall serves as a reminder that in high-profile innovation showcases, precision of language matters as much as technological ambition.
As India continues to advance its artificial intelligence agenda, maintaining credibility at public platforms will remain critical.
In the rapidly evolving AI landscape, transparency is not merely a communication strategy. It is a prerequisite for trust.
