Why The Galgotias Robot Row Is A Wake Up Call for Indian Private Universities

What was meant to be a proud showcase at the India AI Impact Summit in New Delhi quickly turned into a PR crisis for Galgotias University. At the centre of the storm was a four-legged robotic dog introduced at the summit as “Orion.” During a media interaction, Professor Neha Singh described it as a development of the University’s Centre of Excellence and spoke about its surveillance capabilities. The clip was aired widely. 

Then the internet did what it does best. Users began pointing out that the machine looked identical to the Unitree Go2, a commercially available robot built by China-based Unitree Robotics. The model is used across the world in labs and classrooms and can be purchased easily.

The backlash was immediate. People accused the university of presenting an imported Chinese product as an in-house innovation at a summit meant to highlight India’s AI ambitions. 

The university was asked to vacate its stall. Power supply to the pavilion was allegedly cut before the team cleared out. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology stepped in, making it clear that expos must reflect genuine work and that misinformation cannot be encouraged.

The Professor at the Centre of the Debate

As the controversy escalated, the spotlight shifted to Professor Neha Singh. In its formal clarification, the university said, “She was not aware of the technical origins of the product and, in her enthusiasm for being on camera, gave factually incorrect information even though she was not authorised to speak to the press.” 

Earlier, the university had argued that it never claimed to have “built” the robot and that students were working on programming and research using globally available tools. Explanations suggested there had been confusion between the words “develop” and “development.”

Singh addressed the issue herself. “The controversy happened because things may not have been expressed clearly,” she said. “I take accountability that perhaps I did not communicate it properly, as it was done with a lot of energy and enthusiasm and very quickly, so I may not have come across as eloquently as I usually do.”

In a remark that quickly circulated online, she described the matter as one of perception. “Your six, my nine… It’s about perspective.”

There has been no official confirmation of termination or resignation. Speculation grew after her LinkedIn profile showed an “open to work” status, but neither she nor the university has announced any formal change in her employment.

The Private University Trust Question

The real stakes are not about a robot dog. They are about trust. This incident has tapped into a deeper anxiety about India’s private education system.

India has over 500 private universities. Most rely heavily on student fees. In that environment, branding can move faster than academic depth. “AI-powered campus.” “Centre of Excellence.” “Global innovation hub.” These phrases are easy to print on hoardings. Harder to back up with patents, peer-reviewed research, or deployable products.

The issue is not that universities buy global hardware. Institutions everywhere do that. The problem begins when the line between using technology and creating it becomes unclear in public claims.

There are other familiar fault lines. Placement brochures highlight the highest packages, while average salaries remain unspoken. Research counted by volume rather than impact. Labs that look impressive on inspection days but are rarely used to their full potential.

Regulatory frameworks such as NAAC and NIRF were designed to standardise evaluation. Yet much of the data is self-reported. Paper compliance can appear strong even when outcomes are uneven. 

The AI Summit incident forced uncomfortable questions. What qualifies as innovation? Who verifies claims? How much of higher education is performance and how much is substance?

Views expressed by the author are their own.