Whose credit is it anyway? Delhi High Court asks coaching centre to remove ‘defamatory’ posts on CLAT 2026 topper

Clarifying that its observations are not at all based on “personality rights” of the topper, the court added, “The statements appear to be made wilfully to bring disrepute to the goodwill, reputation and standing of the plaintiff nos.1 and 2 and would constitute disparagement. It would be appropriate, therefore, to pass necessary orders protecting the rights of the plaintiffs.”

Topper at heart of dispute

• The case stems from a commercial suit filed by Toprankers Edtech Solutions and its affiliates against a rival coaching institute, alleging defamation, disparagement and trademark infringement.
• At the centre of the controversy is a 17-year-old student who secured All India Rank 1 in the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2026.
• According to the plaintiffs, she had been enrolled in their specialised “Champions Batch” since February 2025 and underwent structured coaching, including mentorship sessions and mock examinations.
• The plaintiffs claimed that after the results were declared, the rival institute attempted to portray the topper as its own student and even offered to sponsor her five-year college education in exchange for exclusive promotional rights- an offer that was declined by her family.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela found that the material placed on record showed a prima facie attempt to harm the reputation of the plaintiffs through videos, posts and advertisements.

Allegations of defamatory campaign

• Despite the refusal, the defendants allegedly launched an aggressive online campaign claiming credit for the topper’s success while simultaneously targeting the plaintiffs.
• The Delhi High Court noted that the material placed on record included videos and blogs accusing the plaintiffs of fraud and unethical practices, social media posts questioning the authenticity of their results, morphed and AI-generated images portraying the plaintiffs negatively and content falsely suggesting that the topper was associated with the rival institute.
• The court observed that such content appeared, at this stage, to be disparaging and intended to damage the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs.

Court flags ‘turf war’, says student dragged in

• Justice Gedela described the dispute as an outcome of an “acrimonious professional rivalry” between competing coaching institutes.
• Importantly, the Delhi High Court noted that the topper had been unnecessarily drawn into the conflict, observing that she appeared to have been used as a “bait” in the larger dispute.
• The court also recorded that the student had clearly communicated that she did not wish to be dragged into the controversy and had publicly attributed her success to the plaintiffs.

Personality rights not ‘automatic’

• In a significant observation, the high court cautioned against an expansive interpretation of “personality rights”.
• It held that a single achievement, such as securing a top rank in an examination, cannot automatically entitle an individual to claim such rights, warning that doing so could lead to “absurdity and incongruity.”
• Stating that in case any and every success, or a milestone achieved is held to be sufficient to be raised to the level of a “personality right”, it would lead to absurdity and incongruity.
• The Delhi High Court said if such an interpretation is carried forward, then every aspirant, candidate, student, citizen of this country, who achieves or is declared as a top ranker in every stage of examination, would be entitled to protection of their “personality rights”.
• Though the courts have not been able to concisely or precisely define ‘personality rights’, it is prudent to avoid such enlargement and widening of the scope to the levels of incongruity and absurdity, the court said.
• It added that the threshold cannot be brought down to individual events, though, that by itself may also not be a bar and may be assessed or ascertained on a case-to-case basis.

Key directions

To prevent further damage, the Delhi High Court passed a series of interim directions:

• It restrained the defendants from publishing or disseminating defamatory or disparaging content against the plaintiffs.
• Prohibited use of the topper’s name, image, or any AI-generated or morphed representations.
• Barred unauthorised use of the plaintiffs’ trademark “LegalEdge”, directed preservation of all relevant digital and documentary evidence.
• Ordered intermediaries such as Google and Meta to take down the offending content within 72 hours.

FIR, parallel proceedings

• The dispute also has a criminal dimension. The plaintiffs issued a cease-and-desist notice on January 5, 2026, following which the defendants lodged a First Information Report (FIR) in Jodhpur on January 6, 2026.
• However, the Rajasthan High Court reportedly stayed proceedings in the FIR. The Delhi High Court clarified that it would not rely on the FIR at this stage of the proceedings.

Next hearing

• The Delhi High Court has issued a summons in the suit and granted time to the defendants to file their response.
• The matter is scheduled to be taken up next on July 14, 2026, before the Joint Registrar and on August 24, 2026, before the court.