Galgotias University faces backlash at India AI Summit over Chinese robodog claims, power cut at pavilion

Tensions escalated at the India AI Impact Summit 2026 at Bharat Mandapam on Feb 17 after Galgotias University’s pavilion had its power disconnected amid a controversy over a robotic dog featured at the university’s stall.

The move came after the institution was reportedly asked to vacate the summit expo area following backlash over claims related to the robot.

The dispute began when the university displayed a quadruped robot named “Orion” at its booth during the summit. In clips that went viral online, a university representative was heard suggesting that the machine had been developed by the university’s Centre of Excellence.

However, social media users and critics quickly identified the device as the Unitree Go2, a commercially available robotic dog manufactured by the Chinese company Unitree Robotics and sold online for around ₹2-3 lakh.

Following the surge of criticism, reports emerged that the organizers had asked Galgotias University to vacate its stall at the expo portion of the India AI Impact Summit — one of the largest AI gatherings in the Global South, inaugurated earlier this week by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Power at the university pavilion was cut off shortly after the controversy escalated, although officials have not publicly confirmed details of the directive.

In response to the backlash, Galgotias University issued a statement on X (formerly Twitter) clarifying its stance. The institution said it had not manufactured the robodog nor claimed to have done so, adding that the device was acquired as part of its approximately ₹350 crore investment in AI to give students practical exposure to advanced technologies.

The university said the presence of the robotic dog at the summit was aimed at supporting learning and research, not to mislead attendees about product origin.

A professor from the university echoed this view, arguing that the earlier remarks made during interactions might have been “misinterpreted” and did not constitute a claim of indigenous development.

The professor emphasised that such tools are used to help students experiment with existing technologies as part of their education and research.