On February 6,Galgotias Universityannounced it had invested over Rs 350 crore in artificial intelligence, calling it the largest AI investment ever made by a private university in India. The press release invoked global ambition, referencing NVIDIA’s DGX H200 platform, Centres of Excellence, and partnerships with institutions and technology companies. The tone positioned the move as strengthening India’s AI leadership alongside the United States and China.
Ten days later, at theAI Impact Summit 2026held at Bharat Mandapam, the university’s showcase became the centre of controversy.
The highlight of its pavilion was a robotic dog named Orion. In a televised segment by DD News, a faculty member stated that the robot had been “developed by the Centre of Excellence” at the university. The robot performed demonstrations and was presented as part of the institution’s AI ecosystem.
However, social media users soon identified the machine as theUnitree RoboticsGo2 robodog — a commercially available product priced at roughly $2,800 (around Rs 2–2.5 lakh). Screenshots of the product listing circulated widely, raising questions about whether a purchased device had been presented as an in-house innovation under a Rs 350 crore AI banner.
As the controversy escalated, the university issued a clarification stating that it had “not built this robodog” and had never claimed to have manufactured it. Later statements described the backlash as a “propaganda campaign.” Meanwhile, reports emerged that the university had been asked to vacate the expo area, though faculty members publicly stated they had received no such formal communication at that time. The robot was subsequently sent back to campus.
The episode has triggered a broader debate. The issue is not whether institutions can purchase global technology — that is common and often necessary. The concern lies in how claims are framed. When a Rs 350 crore AI investment is publicly announced and a device is described on camera as “developed” at a Centre of Excellence, expectations shift from marketing to accountability.
At a time when India’s AI ecosystem seeks credibility, research depth, and global trust, the controversy underscores the fine line between ambition and overstatement. In an era where digital evidence spreads instantly, institutional claims are scrutinised in real time.
The larger takeaway goes beyond one university or one robot. As India positions itself as a serious AI contender, transparency and precision in communication will be as critical as infrastructure and investment. In artificial intelligence, hype can create headlines — but credibility builds ecosystems.
