In an unexpected controversy at the India AI Impact Summit 2026 in the city of New Delhi, Galgotias University was at the centre of an odd PR situation when it featured what it had billed as a local innovation, a robotic dog, named in its pavilion as Orion as an Indian made dog when, in fact, it was actually a Unitree Go2, a robot widely recognized online as Chinese.
Watch The Viral Video Of Neha Singh On ‘Divert Media’
A video clip in which Professor Neha Singh presented the robot and seemed to imply it was created by the Centre of Excellence in the university soon went viral on the social media, and it was met with strong criticism.
Journalist : The administration is saying that they will take actions against you
Neha Singh : Maybe they said that to divert press media 😭
Galgotia people are next level shameless pic.twitter.com/P6eo3YvBdH
— Amock_ (@Amockx2022) February 18, 2026
Opponents claimed that the event exaggerated the technological contributions of the university and was an embarrassment to the larger India in terms of its overall goals at a summit that was supposed to expose genuine domestic AI achievements. During the backlash, the university was requested to empty its stall by the organisers and the government officials insisted that exhibits must explicitly show original work to maintain credibility of the summit. Galgotias then released clarifications stating that it did not purport to have constructed the robot but it was imported in as a learning and educational resource on AI technologies among students.
Is Neha Singh Fired?
It reached another turn when Neha Singh changed her LinkedIn profile to show that she is Open to Work, prompting a new online debate and discussion concerning her professional status after the scandal. This move was taken by many on social platforms to mean that she could be either distancing herself with the university or even being punished because of the viral incident. Singh later addressed questions posed by the media by arguing that the outcry was as a result of a misdirection and communication difference. She made the point that she was not trying to deceive stakeholders or the general public but to motivate students that were using the technology and she once again explained that the purpose of the robot was educational and not a demonstration of proprietary invention.
The reaction of the online community has been swift and mixed some users joked about the fiasco as an unnecessary PR nightmare, others discussed more serious matters of openness and academic integrity in tech exhibits. Several observers note the event not only as a communication breakdown, but also as an opportunity lost in pointing out the true research strengths, and in a discipline as competitive on the global stage as artificial intelligence.
