The recent robodog controversy at the India AI Impact Summit 2026 has sparked widespread debate, placing Galgotias University under intense scrutiny. What began as a showcase of innovation quickly turned into a public relations setback after claims surrounding a robotic dog demonstration were called into question.
Here’s a detailed look at how the controversy unfolded, the university’s response, and Professor Neha Singh’s statement taking accountability.
The Viral Demonstration That Sparked the Row
At the AI Impact Summit 2026, Professor Neha Singh of Galgotias University was seen presenting a robotic dog named “Orion.” In a now-viral video clip, she described the machine as being developed by the university’s Centre of Excellence and highlighted its capabilities in surveillance and campus monitoring.
However, soon after the video circulated on social media, viewers pointed out that the robot resembled products manufactured by Unitree Robotics, a well-known Chinese robotics firm. This led to allegations that the robot being showcased was not developed in-house by the university, contrary to what was implied during the presentation.
University’s Clarifications and Apology
Following the backlash, Galgotias University issued multiple statements to clarify its position.
In its latest statement, the university apologised for the “confusion” caused at the summit. It stated that its representative at the pavilion was “ill-informed” about the technical origins of the product and, in her enthusiasm to engage with the media, provided factually incorrect information. The university emphasised that she was not authorised to speak to the press.
The statement read in part:
“We at Galgotias University wish to apologise profusely for the confusion created at the recent AI Summit. One of our representatives, manning the pavilion, was ill-informed. She was not aware of the technical origins of the product and in her enthusiasm of being on camera, gave factually incorrect information…”
The university further stated that, understanding the sentiment of the organisers, it vacated the premises of the expo.
Earlier, Galgotias had clarified that it never claimed to have built the robodog. The university maintained that its focus is on building AI talent and training students to design and engineer such technologies in the future, using globally available tools and resources.
Removal from the AI Summit Expo
According to reports, Galgotias University was asked to vacate its stall at the AI Impact Summit Expo after organisers termed the incident a “national embarrassment.” While Professor Neha Singh initially stated that the institution had not received any formal directive, visuals from the event showed that power supply to the university’s stall had been cut off.
This development intensified the controversy and fueled public debate on institutional responsibility and representation at high-profile tech events.
Professor Neha Singh Takes Accountability
Amid mounting criticism, Professor Neha Singh addressed the controversy and took accountability for the communication lapse.
She stated:
“The controversy happened because things may not have been expressed clearly. I take accountability that perhaps I did not communicate it properly, as it was done with a lot of energy and enthusiasm and very quickly, so I may not have come across as eloquently as I usually do.”
Her response suggests that the issue stemmed from miscommunication rather than deliberate misrepresentation. She acknowledged that her enthusiasm during the demonstration may have led to unclear or incorrect messaging.
Larger Questions Around AI Showcases and Transparency
The incident has sparked broader discussions about transparency, attribution, and representation in India’s growing AI ecosystem. As universities and institutions increasingly participate in high-profile technology summits, clear communication about collaborations, sourcing, and development becomes critical.
While Galgotias University maintains that its intent was to demonstrate AI learning and application rather than claim original manufacturing, the controversy underscores the importance of precise messaging—especially in an era where videos can go viral within minutes.
Conclusion
The robodog row at the India AI Impact Summit 2026 serves as a cautionary tale for academic institutions and tech exhibitors alike. A combination of enthusiasm, unclear communication, and public scrutiny turned what was meant to be a showcase into a reputational challenge.
With Professor Neha Singh taking accountability and the university issuing multiple clarifications, the focus may now shift toward rebuilding trust and ensuring greater transparency in future representations of technological capabilities.
