Galgotias University Expelled from AI Summit Over Chinese Robot Dog Controversy

The India AI Impact Summit 2026, intended to be a showcase for domestic technological advancement, has been thrust into a controversy regarding academic integrity and the authenticity of 'Made in India' hardware. Galgotias University, a prominent private institution, was ordered to immediately vacate its stall at the expo following allegations that it misrepresented a commercially available Chinese robotic dog as its own indigenous creation, named 'Orion.' The expulsion marks a significant moment of friction between India's ambitious 'Atmanirbhar' (self-reliant) policy goals and the reality of rapid-cycle hardware development.

The controversy began when videos from the summit's opening days went viral on social media platforms, particularly X. In these clips, university representatives were seen describing the 'Orion' robot as an in-house innovation developed by their students and faculty. However, tech-savvy attendees and online observers quickly identified the hardware as the Unitree Go2, a well-known quadruped robot manufactured by the Chinese firm Unitree and available for purchase online. The discrepancy was further highlighted by X's Community Notes feature, which provided direct links to the product's commercial listing, effectively debunking the university's claims of original manufacture in real-time.

“

In the wake of the backlash, Galgotias University reportedly pivoted its narrative, suggesting the Unitree Go2 was purchased for 'teaching purposes' and to help students understand robotics.

This incident highlights a growing tension within the Indian tech ecosystem: the pressure to produce tangible hardware results in a market that has historically excelled in software. For academic institutions, the allure of showcasing physical robotics can lead to 'white-labeling'—the practice of rebranding existing products—which, while common in some commercial sectors, is considered a serious breach of ethics in research and development. The summit organizers' decision to expel the university reflects a zero-tolerance policy toward such misrepresentation, especially at an event designed to highlight genuine domestic impact.

Comparisons were inevitably drawn to IT giant Wipro, which also showcased a similar Chinese-made robotic dog at the same event. However, industry analysts and summit sources were quick to distinguish between the two cases. Wipro, primarily a software and services firm, utilized the robot as a platform to demonstrate its proprietary software integration and AI control systems. Crucially, Wipro did not claim to have designed or manufactured the physical hardware, whereas Galgotias University's branding of the unit as 'Orion' and its subsequent 'in-house' claims were viewed as a deliberate attempt to mislead the public and government stakeholders.

In the wake of the backlash, Galgotias University reportedly pivoted its narrative, suggesting the Unitree Go2 was purchased for 'teaching purposes' and to help students understand robotics. However, this explanation did little to quell the criticism, as the initial presentation at the summit was framed as a breakthrough in indigenous engineering. The university's stall was reported empty by the third day of the summit, and the 'Orion' robot was removed from the floor. This outcome serves as a cautionary tale for institutions participating in high-profile government-backed expos, where the scrutiny of 'Made in India' claims is becoming increasingly rigorous.

Looking forward, this scandal is likely to lead to stricter vetting processes for exhibitors at national AI and technology summits. Policy makers may implement mandatory 'disclosure of origin' requirements for all hardware prototypes to ensure that the 'Atmanirbhar Bharat' initiative remains a credible driver of genuine innovation rather than a marketing label. For the broader AI and robotics sector in India, the incident underscores the need for a clear distinction between hardware manufacturing and software integration, ensuring that the country's technological progress is built on a foundation of transparency and verifiable achievement.