Galgotias University Ordered to Leave AI Summit Venue

February 18, 2026

Organisers of the India AI Impact Summit 2026 in Delhi have asked Galgotias University to vacate its exhibition area at the AI summit being held at Bharat Mandapam. This firm directive follows a widening controversy over the university’s display of a robotic dog that critics say was misrepresented at the event.

 What Sparked the Row

At the summit, Galgotias University showcased a quadruped robotic dog dubbed “Orion” as part of its AI technology exhibits including a claimed ₹350 crore artificial intelligence ecosystem. Viral social media posts and videos alleged that the robot was actually a commercially available robot made in China, not a homegrown innovation developed by the university.

Experts and attendees noticed that the robot closely resembled the Unitree Go2, a model manufactured by the Chinese firm Unitree Robotics and sold online for about ₹2–3 lakh.

 University Clarification and Backlash

Galgotias denied ever claiming that it built the robot itself, saying the unit was procured from a global provider as a learning tool to help students understand robotics and AI. The institution insisted it did not present it as an in-house innovation.

However, critics pointed to a viral clip from the summit in which a representative allegedly described the robot as developed by the university’s own “Centre of Excellence”. This contradiction intensified the controversy and led to growing pressure on summit organizers.

Summit Organizers Decision

Responding to the uproar and concerns about misrepresentation and integrity of the showcase, summit authorities reportedly directed Galgotias University to remove its stall and vacate the venue area. This step aims to protect the event’s reputation and uphold rules against misleading claims about intellectual property and innovation.

No official statement on the venue removal has yet been released by the university.

 Wider Reactions and Online Debate

The episode has ignited online debate about transparency in tech demonstrations and the importance of clearly distinguishing imported technology from indigenous innovation especially at national events meant to showcase “Make in India” achievements. Observers said clearer labelling and context could have prevented the dispute.