The backlash comes days after authorities at the India AI Impact Summit 2026 in New Delhi directed the Galgotia university to vacate its stall over similar concerns involving a robotic dog sourced from China.
BY PC Bureau
February 18, 2026: Galgotias University has come under renewed scrutiny on social media after claims surfaced that a “soccer drone” showcased on its Greater Noida campus was entirely developed in-house—an assertion that online users quickly challenged. The controversy erupted after the university was directed by authorities to vacate its stall at the India AI Impact Summit 2026 in New Delhi over a separate dispute involving a robotic dog.
In promotional material and a now-viral video, the university described the soccer drone as a product of its “end-to-end innovation ecosystem.” A staff member, speaking on camera, highlighted the institution’s infrastructure, saying, “From engineering to real-world application, we have built everything here—from simulation labs to an application arena. This is India’s first soccer drone arena on a university campus.” The statement was widely interpreted as implying that the drone itself was designed and built internally by the university’s faculty and students.
🚨 One more fraud by Galgotias University
They claimed, they have built this Drone model from scratch, done end to end engineering of it
But it is commercially available Striker V3 ARF
AI summit has became a joke due to these frauds 🤡
— Veena Jain (@Vtxt21) February 18, 2026
However, social media users and drone enthusiasts soon identified the device as the Striker V3 ARF, a commercially available drone manufactured by South Korea-based Helsel Group. The model, commonly used in drone soccer competitions, is sold internationally and is available in India through resellers for approximately ₹40,000. Screenshots comparing the campus drone with the retail version circulated widely online, prompting accusations that imported technology was being portrayed as indigenous innovation.
Critics accused the university of exaggerating its role, arguing that presenting off-the-shelf equipment as in-house development undermines genuine research efforts and misleads students and the public. Several users mocked the claims, with some sarcastically calling it “reverse innovation—from Korea to campus lab.” Others raised broader concerns about transparency and academic credibility, especially given the growing emphasis on indigenous technology development under national innovation initiatives.
The controversy follows closely on the heels of another incident at the India AI Impact Summit, where Galgotias University had displayed a robotic dog named “Orion” at its Centre of Excellence stall. Observers and robotics experts quickly recognized the machine as the Unitree Go2, a quadruped robot manufactured by China-based Unitree Robotics and available commercially in India. A video showing a university professor describing the robot’s capabilities in a manner that many interpreted as suggesting internal development triggered a wave of criticism online.
🚨 Galgotias University
💥Bringing global fame for India 👎
They claimed, they have built this Drone model from scratch, done end to end engineering of it
But it is commercially available Striker V3 ARF
AI summit has became a joke due to these frauds 🤡
👉 One female is… pic.twitter.com/PIa2ooiQVP
— @Moini (@moini_565) February 18, 2026
In response to that incident, the university issued a clarification stating that it had never claimed to have built the robotic dog. “Let us be clear—Galgotias has not built this robodog, nor have we claimed to do so,” the statement said, adding that the device was acquired as a teaching and demonstration tool to help students understand advanced robotics and inspire them to design similar technologies in India.
READ: China-Made Robodog: Galgotias University Told To Vacate AI Summit Stall
Government sources confirmed that authorities took the matter seriously and instructed the university to vacate its expo space at the summit the same day, citing concerns related to compliance, transparency, and accurate representation of technology. Officials emphasized that exhibitors are expected to clearly disclose the origin and nature of technologies displayed, particularly at an event positioned as a showcase of India’s growing artificial intelligence and innovation ecosystem.
Galgotias University has since denied any intent to mislead and described the criticism as part of a “negative propaganda campaign.” The institution maintained that its focus remains on building student capabilities and exposing learners to global technologies while working toward developing indigenous solutions in the future.
Despite the clarification, the twin controversies have intensified online debate, with critics accusing the university of overstating its technological achievements and supporters arguing that exposure to international tools is a legitimate part of academic training. The episode has also reignited broader discussions about authenticity, transparency, and accountability in India’s rapidly expanding university-led innovation ecosystem, particularly at a time when institutions are under pressure to demonstrate homegrown technological capability on global platforms.
