Neha Singh gets social media support after Galgotias AI summit blunder

Social media users have strongly criticised Indian university Galgotias, for allegedly making assistant professor Neha Singh a scapegoat after the university was removed from the ‘India AI Impact Summit 2026’ over falsely claiming a commercially available robot dog, which was designed by China as its own invention.

The controversy began when assistant professor of Galgotia University, Neha Singh told state broadcaster DD News that a robotic dog named “Orion”, displayed at the summit, had been developed by the Centre of Excellence at Galgotias University.

However, viewers soon noticed online that the robot was, in fact, made by Chinese robotics firm ‘Unitree Robotics’. The quadruped robot, widely used in educational and research settings around the world, is commercially available and not an original design by Galgotia University.

The university was subsequently asked to leave the event.

Following the incident, in a press release, Galgotias University claimed that the incident occurred because Neha Singh, the assistant professor, was not aware of these factors and had given factually incorrect information out of enthusiasm while speaking on camera.

Shortly afterwards, Neha Singh updated her LinkedIn profile to show she was “Open to Work”, prompting speculation about her position at the institution.

The university’s statement has drawn criticism from social media users, many of whom have accused the institution of making Neha Singh a scapegoat.

One user, who identified as a mid-level IT services manager, wrote that Neha Singh had been sent to the summit not for technical expertise but for communication skills, as she was head of communications.

The user argued that had the incident not been recorded or highlighted publicly, the university might have avoided scrutiny.

“Now since it was blown out, she is the scapegoat,” the user wrote.

Another user noted that scapegoating is a common practice that organisations used to avoid negative attention.

“What I learnt from this incident is that as an employee, if you “make a mistake” , then its your fault. And the company can “blame” you for the mistake you did,” a user who identified as a senior software engineer at a B2B firm said.

Others suggested the episode highlighted a wider issue in India’s technology sector, arguing that individuals without deep technical backgrounds are sometimes positioned as experts in emerging fields such as artificial intelligence.

“This is the culmination of all that. Only throwing jargon doesn’t make a person or a country a leading technology nation. These yappers have ruined the field of technology in India,” the user, who works in IT stated.