AI Impact Summit: Galgotias issues apology after robodog controversy, govt warns on exhibit integrity

Galgotias University was forced to vacate its stall at the India AI Impact Summit 2026 after a robotic dog it presented as “Orion” was identified online as a Chinese-manufactured product, triggering political criticism and government intervention.

The controversy began when Professor Neha Singh, representing the university at the summit, described the quadruped robot during a media interaction and said it “has been developed by the Centre of Excellence at Galgotias University.”

The clip, aired by one of the prominent media agencies, showed her explaining the robot’s surveillance and monitoring capabilities and its movement across campus.

Soon after, social media users pointed out that the machine appeared identical to the Unitree Go2, a commercially available robotic dog produced by Unitree Robotics.

The model is widely used globally for research and education and is available in India for approximately ₹2–3 lakh.

Critics alleged that an imported Chinese product had been showcased as an in-house innovation at a summit intended to highlight domestic AI achievements.

Questions were also raised about a “drone soccer arena” displayed at the stall, which was described by critics as a Korean product.

As the issue escalated, authorities asked the university to vacate its pavilion. Power supply to the stall was reportedly cut before the team cleared the premises.

An official at the Centre’s Press Information Bureau, speaking anonymously, described the episode as a “national embarrassment.”

Information Technology Secretary S Krishnan said the government wanted “genuine and actual work” to be reflected at expos.

“We don't want controversy around exhibits here. Plagiarism and misinformation cannot be encouraged. This should not overshadow the wonderful exhibits others have put on,” he said, adding that exhibitors must not display items that are not theirs.

Additional Secretary Abhishek Singh said the problem was that the university “misled,” highlighting that the intention was not to stifle innovation but to prevent misleading displays at a global forum.

Facing backlash, the university’s response evolved through the day. In its initial statement, it said it had not built the robodog and had never claimed to do so.

“Galgotias has not built this robodog, nor have we claimed to do so. What we are building are minds that will soon design, engineer, and manufacture such technologies here in Bharat.”

It described the criticism as a “propaganda campaign” and said robotic programming formed part of its effort to help students develop AI skills using globally available tools.

Registrar Nitin Kumar Gaur later acknowledged an error. “We (Galgotias University) have already given our explanation. I told you yesterday that it was a mistake, we are sorry for that. We never want the image of the university or the country to be ruined,” he said.

“We have vacated the stall from there (India AI Impact Summit). We are definitely going to investigate the rest of the things. We will see why this mistake was made and will ensure that no such mistake is repeated. If the image is ruined because of one mistake, then it is unacceptable,” he added.

On Professor Singh’s status, he said, “She is not suspended and has been told to stay. Until the complete investigation is done as to why such a mistake has been committed, such proceedings will continue. Because of one person’s wrongdoing, the entire university should not be questioned. We are also citizens of India, and we definitely want our country to move forward.”

In a subsequent formal apology, the university said its representative had been “ill-informed” about the product’s technical origins and, “in her enthusiasm of being on camera, gave factually incorrect information even though she was not authorized to speak to the press.”

It stated there was “no institutional intent to misrepresent this innovation” and said it vacated the premises in line with the organizer's sentiment.

Prof Singh said her remarks were misinterpreted. “We have never claimed that it is ours, Indian, or Galgotian. Its main branding is still on it. The robot that had come for a particular task has gone there for the children’s study and for the children’s research and development. Our center, our campus, it has gone into the children’s lab. It was here for two days for projection; the projection has been completed,” she said.

She also said she teaches communications at the School of Management and does not teach AI, and that the controversy stemmed from hurried communication and enthusiasm rather than any intention to falsely claim ownership.

Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi criticized the summit, calling it a "disorganized PR spectacle” and questioning why Chinese products were being displayed at an event meant to project India’s AI ambitions.

The Centre subsequently warned exhibitors that they must not showcase products that are not their own, underscoring the need for accuracy and transparency at national technology forums.