In 18 February 2026, at the high-profile India AI Impact Summit held in New Delhi, a controversy erupted involving Galgotias University, a private institution based in Greater Noida. The university’s exhibition pavilion had drawn attention for showcasing an advanced robotic dog at its stall — a quadruped machine branded “Orion.” During the summit, a video circulated online in which a Galgotias University professor introduced “Orion” to a television reporter and explained that the robot had been developed by the university’s Centre of Excellence as part of its investments in artificial intelligence research and education.
However, within hours, observers and tech enthusiasts identified the machine not as a proprietary development, but as a commercially available Chinese-made robot — the Unitree Go2, manufactured by Unitree Robotics. The Unitree Go2 is widely sold internationally for use in research and education and is not an invention of the university.
The rapid spread of the video sparked widespread public criticism, social-media mockery, and political backlash. Many commentators framed the incident as emblematic of misleading claims about technological innovation; critics highlighted the problematic optics of displaying a Chinese product under the guise of a home-grown AI breakthrough at a government-backed summit. Even opposition politicians leveraged the episode to question India’s credibility in presenting itself as a serious global AI hub.
In response to the uproar, Galgotias University issued a series of official clarifications. In its formal statement, the university strongly denied that it had ever claimed to have built the robotic dog. It stated clearly that “Galgotias has not built this robodog, nor have we claimed to have done so” and emphasized that the recently acquired robot was being used as a “classroom in motion” — a teaching and learning tool through which students could experiment with and understand AI systems. The university framed the presence of the robot as part of its broader mission to expose students to cutting-edge technologies and to cultivate future innovators who might one day design and build such systems.
The university further explained that the controversy stemmed from miscommunication by the representative who spoke to the media. In a press release, Galgotias University said that the individual who interacted with the reporter was “ill-informed” about the product’s origins and not authorised to speak on behalf of the institution. The statement expressed regret for the confusion created and made clear that there was no institutional intent to misrepresent the product as an original invention. The university reiterated its commitment to academic integrity, transparency, and responsible representation of its work.
In another clarification, senior officials including the university registrar acknowledged the event as a “mistake” and said they were investigating why it occurred, while making it clear that the wider institution should not be judged based on the actions of a single individual. The university also stressed it remained focused on real innovation and skill-building in AI.
Despite these explanations, the summit organisers reportedly asked Galgotias University to vacate its exhibition stall amid the controversy — adding another layer to the embarrassment at the event.
