A controversy erupted at the India AI Impact Summit 2026 after Galgotias University displayed a robotic dog named “Orion,” presenting it as part of the work carried out at its Centre of Excellence.
The robot was quickly identified online as the Unitree Go2, a commercially available quadruped manufactured by Chinese robotics firm Unitree Robotics. The model is sold in India through online distributors and is typically priced between ₹2 lakh and ₹3 lakh.
Videos from the summit circulated widely on social media, raising questions about whether the university had developed the device in-house.
As scrutiny intensified, Galgotias University issued a statement denying that it had built the robot. The institution said the device had been purchased from Unitree and was being used solely as an educational tool for students, not presented as an original product developed on campus.
The incident escalated further at the summit venue in India’s capital. According to attendees, officials asked the university to vacate its exhibition space over the display of the Chinese-made robot. Shortly afterward, power to the Galgotias stall was reportedly cut.
Galgotias University is also facing fresh scrutiny online after claiming that faculty and students at its Greater Noida campus had developed a “soccer drone” entirely in-house.
The university described the project as a fully indigenous effort, portraying the drone as the result of end-to-end engineering carried out on campus. In videos now circulating on social media, a university representative is heard saying: “So they basically, from the end-to-end engineering to the application, we have a simulation lab to an application arena and that’s India’s first soccer arena on campus.”
READ: India’s first sovereign ‘AI box’ unveiled at AI Summit 2026 (
Online users quickly challenged that narrative. Several identified the drone as the Striker V3 ARF, a commercially available product sold in India for roughly ₹40,000. The model is manufactured by Helsel Group, a South Korea-based firm known for developing equipment for competitive drone sports.
The Helsel Striker V3 is widely marketed for drone soccer leagues and training programs, raising questions about whether the university’s claim of having built the device “from scratch” accurately reflected its origins.
The controversy comes amid heightened scrutiny over how academic institutions present innovation projects at public forums, particularly following recent criticism over the display of imported robotics equipment at national tech events.
University officials have pushed back against allegations that Galgotias University falsely claimed to have built the robotic dog showcased at the summit, saying the controversy stems from a misunderstanding over wording.
Nitin Kumar Gaur, the university’s registrar, said critics had conflated two different terms. “This is a jumble of two words, develop, and development. We didn’t develop it. We worked on its development…,” he said, drawing a distinction between creating a product from scratch and using it for academic research.
Gaur maintained that the robot had been purchased to support student learning, similar to other imported equipment used in laboratories. “We want to bring them, just like that robot was brought, and an effort was made to get students to do research on it… I can say that perhaps she (Professor Neha) might have been confused by the words ‘develop’ and ‘development’ in the flow. But the truth is that we bought this robot for children’s research… If China is making the claim, then maybe it (robodog) could be bought from China… I haven’t received any such official communication yet (on vacating the expo),” he added.
Professor Neha Singh, who appeared in the original promotional video that went viral, also rejected suggestions that the university had presented the robot as its own invention. Speaking to ANI, she said: “We have never claimed that it is ours, Indian, or Galgotian. Its main branding is still on it. The robot that had come for a particular task has gone there for the children’s study, for the children’s research and development. Our centre, our campus — it has gone into the children’s lab. It was here for two days for projection; the projection has been completed.”
Addressing the backlash online, Singh described the uproar as the result of a misinterpretation amplified on social media.
READ: India’s AI carnival: A warning and a bet on the future (
“By one misinterpretation, the internet has gone by storm. It might be that I could not convey well what I wanted to say, or it was misunderstood. I am a faculty member in communications at the School of Management, not in AI. Only you (the media) have heard what the government has said. As far as I know, we are here at the expo. As a university, we are standing tall. The robot was brought here only for projection,” she claimed.
Galgotias University said it is the target of what it described as a coordinated backlash following the controversy over its display of a robotic dog at the India AI Impact Summit 2026 in New Delhi.
In a public statement, the Greater Noida-based institution characterized the criticism, both online and at the event as politically or competitively motivated. “We at Galgotias, faculty and students, are deeply pained by the propaganda campaign against our university. We would like to clearly state that the robotic programming is part of our endeavour to make students learn AI programming and develop & deploy real-world skills using globally available tools and resources, given that developing AI talent is need of an [sic] hour,” the statement read.
The university’s response comes after videos from the summit went viral, showing representatives presenting a Chinese-manufactured robotic dog at the event. Critics alleged that the machine was portrayed as a product of the university’s Centre of Excellence, triggering a wave of scrutiny on social media.
Several media outlets have reported that Galgotias University was asked to vacate its exhibition space at the summit following the controversy. University officials, however, have maintained that the robot was intended as a teaching and demonstration tool, not an original invention developed on campus.