When a four-legged robot named Orion rushed to the floor of the India AI Impact Summit, it was supposed to showcase the latest innovations from the Greater Noida region. Instead, within hours, it sparked a storm that forced Galgotias University to vacate its booth and issue a public apology — after social media users identified the device as a Chinese-made product.
From Orion to Unitree: How the controversy erupted
The row started when Professor Neha Singh, representing the university at the summit, presented a robot dog branded as ‘Orion’ during a media interaction. In a clip broadcast by DD News, she said the robot was “developed by the Center of Excellence at Galgotias University” and described its monitoring and surveillance capabilities.
“A proud moment for humanity!” Social media angers Galgotias University, China reacts to robo dog class
However, users online quickly pointed out that the robot appears identical to the Unitree Go2, a commercially available quadruped robot manufactured by Unitree Robotics.
This model is widely used in research and education globally and is available in India for approximately Rs 2-3 lakh.
What followed was rapid ridicule and political criticism. Critics claimed that an imported Chinese product was presented as an in-house innovation at a summit aimed at highlighting home-grown AI capabilities.As the scrutiny intensified, the sources said that the authorities asked the university to vacate its booth.
The ward reportedly lost power before the team evacuated the building.The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology made its clear position clear. Minister S Krishnan said the government wanted “real and actual work” to be reflected in the exhibitions and that “misinformation cannot be encouraged”. Without directly blaming him, he added that the organizers do not want to create controversy around the exhibitions and that a code of conduct is necessary.Additional Chief Secretary Abhishek Singh said the intention was not to stifle innovation but the presentations should not be misleading and the incident should not overshadow the efforts of other participants.
Damage control and changing interpretations
In the face of increasing backlash, the university’s response evolved throughout the day.In an initial statement, it stressed that it did not claim to have built the robot, arguing that exposure to global technologies was key to students’ learning.
She described the criticism as a “propaganda campaign” and said that machine programming forms part of its efforts to help students develop real-world AI skills using globally available tools.Registrar Nitin Kumar Gaur later sought to clarify what he called a “confusion” between the words “development” and “development”. Speaking to ANI, he said that the university did not develop the robot but “worked on developing it” for academic and research purposes.
He said the machine was purchased to support student research.Professor Singh also issued a clarification, saying there had been a “misinterpretation” and that the university had never claimed the robot had been manufactured by it. She accepted that she may not have conveyed her point clearly in the flow of the interaction.By evening, the tone had changed decisively. In a formal apology, the university said the actress running the stand was “uninformed” of the product’s technical origins and provided “factually incorrect information” in her on-camera rant, despite not being allowed to speak to the press.
The statement insisted that “there is no institutional intention to distort this innovation” and said that the university had vacated the building in keeping with the sentiments of the organiser.At the same time, opposition leaders took advantage of this incident. Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi described the summit as a “disorganized public relations spectacle”, questioning why Chinese products were being showcased at an event aimed at highlighting India’s ambitions in the field of artificial intelligence.
