The India AI Impact Summit 2026 in Delhi was meant to be a proud showcase of India’s growing strength in artificial intelligence. With Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurating the event, the atmosphere was charged with excitement as universities, startups, and global tech companies came together to present their innovations. Among them was Galgotias University, which introduced a robotic dog named Orion through its Centre of Excellence.
What should have been a moment of pride quickly turned into controversy. A video clip from the expo began circulating online, showing a Galgotias representative claiming that Orion was developed in-house. However, sharp-eyed observers noticed that the robot bore a striking resemblance to the Unitree Go2 — a well-known robotic dog manufactured in China. This raised immediate questions about whether the university was attempting to pass off imported technology as its own creation.
The backlash was swift. Government officials, keen to protect the credibility of India’s AI showcase, asked Galgotias University to vacate its stall at the expo. The decision sent a strong message: authenticity and transparency are non-negotiable when presenting innovations on such a prestigious platform.
In response, Galgotias University took to social media to defend its participation. In its official statement, the university emphasized that its goal was not misrepresentation but rather student learning and exposure to global tools. The tweet highlighted its commitment to education and innovation, though it carefully avoided directly addressing the allegations about Orion’s origins.
This incident has sparked wider debate about the state of innovation in India. On one hand, it underscores the importance of nurturing genuine research and development rather than relying too heavily on imported technologies. On the other, it raises ethical questions about how universities present their work to the public and to policymakers. At a time when India is positioning itself as a global hub for artificial intelligence, controversies like this risk undermining trust and credibility.
For students, the episode is a reminder of the need for transparency in education. They deserve clarity about what is truly developed in-house and what is adapted from global sources. For policymakers, it highlights the importance of setting stricter standards for participation in national technology showcases. And for the public, it serves as a cautionary tale about the fine line between learning from global innovations and claiming them as one’s own.
In the end, the Galgotias University controversy is not just about a robotic dog. It is about integrity, credibility, and the future of India’s AI journey. If India is to stand tall as a leader in artificial intelligence, it must ensure that its showcases reflect genuine innovation and uphold the values of honesty and transparency.
