Galgotias University on Wednesday released an official statement addressing the uproar surrounding a demonstration at the India AI Impact Summit, where a robotic dog showcased at its stall was mistakenly presented as an in-house innovation. The institution clarified that there was no deliberate attempt to misrepresent the product and attributed the confusion to an individual-level error.
The controversy began after a video from the event at Bharat Mandapam surfaced online, showing faculty member Neha Singh introducing a four-legged robotic device as “Orion,” claiming it was developed by the university’s Centre of Excellence. She also referenced significant institutional investment while describing the robot’s potential applications. The clip quickly gained traction on social media, where users pointed out that the device closely resembled the Unitree Go2, a commercially available robotic platform developed by Unitree Robotics.
In its statement, the university said Singh was not authorised to speak on behalf of the institution and may have provided inaccurate technical details “in the enthusiasm of the moment.” It stressed that there was “no institutional intent to misrepresent the innovation” and reaffirmed its commitment to academic transparency and ethical standards. The university also confirmed that it had vacated the exhibition space after discussions with organisers, stating it respected their concerns.
Reacting to the incident, IT Secretary S. Krishnan said authorities do not want exhibitors to display products in a way that creates confusion about ownership or origin. “We do not want such exhibits to continue,” he said, adding that clarity is essential to avoid unnecessary controversy.
Speaking separately, Singh maintained that the misunderstanding arose due to unclear communication rather than intent. “We never claimed to have manufactured the robot,” she said, explaining that the device was introduced to students as part of efforts to expose them to advanced technologies and inspire innovation. She added that she was unaware of any directive asking the university to vacate the venue and stated that faculty members were still present at the event.
