Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Feb 18: Greater Noida-based private university Galgotias University was forced to vacate its stall at the on-going AI Impact Summit in New Delhi after a controversy over display of a made-in-China robotic dog as its own innovation.
Following the controversy, IT Secretary S Krishnan said the government did not want any exhibitor to showcase items that were not their own. “We do not want such exhibits to continue,” he said, after organisers asked Galgotias University to vacate its stall.
The Greater Noida-based institution faced immediate action after a viral video from the event showed its representatives presenting a Chinese-made robotic dog as a product developed by the university’s Centre of Excellence. Later in the day in a statement, Galgotias University apologised for the confusion created at the AI Impact Summit, stating that the person “manning the pavillion was ill-informed.”
“She was not aware of the technical origins of the products and in her enthusiasm of being on camera, gave factually incorrect information even though she was not authorised to speak to the press,” the university said. Stating that there was “no institutional intent to misrepresent this innovation,” the university said it remained firmly committed to academic integrity, transparency and responsible representations of its work.” It said it has vacated the premises “understanding the organiser’s sentiment.”
The controversy erupted after Neha Singh, a professor of communications at the University, on Tuesday showed to DD News a robotic dog Orion, saying it “has been developed by the Centre of Excellence at Galgotias University.” The interview, recorded on Tuesday, quickly went viral on social media, where users identified the device as a Unitree Go2, a commercially available quadruped robot manufactured by China’s Unitree Robotics and widely used in research and educational settings around the world.
The robot in question is the Unitree Go2, a commercially available model from the Chinese robotics company Unitree that is sold online in India for between Rs 2 lakh and Rs 3 lakh. At the summit the machine was displayed and referred to as “Orion”. A video that spread rapidly on social media captured a woman, identified in reports as a university representative, explaining the robot’s features during a media interaction at the summit.
She stated that Galgotias University’s Centre of Excellence had developed “Orion.” A separate clip from an interview showed a university professor making the same claim, telling a reporter that the robot had been built at the Centre of Excellence. Social media users quickly identified the machine as the imported Unitree Go2 and accused the university of passing off foreign technology as an Indian innovation.
As the episode snowballed into a controversy, the university was asked to vacate the stall. Facing backlash, both Galgotias and Ms Singh on Wednesday said the robot was not a university creation and that the institution had never claimed otherwise. IT Secretary Krishnan, however, emphasised that the government would not tolerate exhibits misrepresented as original creations.
“If you mislead… we do not want a controversy (and) so we do not want a controversial agency… whom people believe are exhibiting something which is not theirs,” he said. Abhishek Singh, Additional Secretary in Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, said the intention was not to stifle innovation but it should not be misleading. The controversy “should not overshadow the kind of effort that the others have put in,” he said.
As Galgotias University drew sharp criticism and accusations of misrepresenting imported technology as its own, the institution issued a statement saying, “the robotic programming is part of our endeavour to make students learn AI programming and develop and deploy real world skills using globally available tools and resources, given developing AI talent is the need of the hour.”
Stating that its faculty and students were “deeply pained by the propaganda campaign” against the institution, the university said its vision was focused on student learning and innovation, and that it provided students access to modern technologies to help them gain practical experience and prepare for the future. “Spreading negativity can harm the morale of students, who are working hard to innovate, learn and build their skills using global technologies,” it said.
The university maintained that the exercise was aimed at imparting hands-on AI programming skills using globally available platforms and tools. On ground, the university’s stall at the expo had no display on Wednesday though some students of the university continued to occupy the stall.
Galgotias University posted a statement on X stating that the robotic dog had been procured from Unitree and was being used purely as a learning tool for students. The university insisted it had never claimed to have built the device, despite its staff claiming on camera that it did.
“The recently acquired robodog from Unitree is one such step in that journey,” the statement read. “It is not merely a machine on display; it is a classroom in motion. Our students are experimenting with it, testing its limits and, in the process, expanding their own knowledge. Let us be clear: Galgotias has not built this robodog, nor have we ever claimed to. Let us be clear – Galgotias has not built this robodog, neither have we claimed. But what we are building are minds that will soon design, engineer, and manufacture such technologies right here in Bharat.”
A later statement from the university described the criticism as part of a “propaganda campaign” against it. The post itself incurred a Community Note on X. The note stated that the claim of never having presented the robodog as its own was incorrect and misleading. It pointed out that the university had named the robot “Orion” and that its representatives had explicitly claimed it was developed by their team.
Responding to the controversy, Ms Singh said, “The controversy happened because things may not have been expressed clearly and the intent may not have been properly understood.” “Regarding the robot dog, we cannot claim that we manufactured it. I have told everyone that we introduced it to our students to inspire them to create something better on their own. Our university contributes to building future leaders by providing cutting-edge technologies in the field of AI, and it will continue to do so.”
“By one misinterpretation, the internet has gone by storm. It might be that I could not convey well what I had wanted to say, or you could not understand well what I wanted to say. I am a faculty member in communications at the School of Management, not in AI. Only you (the media) have heard what the government has said, as far as I know we are here at the expo. As a university, we are standing tall. The robot was brought here only for projection,” Ms Singh said.