Delhi HC bars defamatory posts against CLAT topper amid spat between law coaching centres for credit

A battle between two coaching centres claiming credit for the success of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2026 exam topper has reached the Delhi High Court [Toprankers Edtech Solutions Private Limited & Ors. Vs LPT Edtech Private Limited And Ors.].

Toprankers Edtech Solutions, which operates the law coaching centre, LegalEdge, has filed a plea accusing its rival, Law Prep Tutorial, of dragging Geetali Gupta, who secured the first rank in CLAT 2026, in a defamatory campaign after Gupta released a video crediting LegalEdge for her success.

On April 13, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela granted Toprankers Edtech solutions interim relief by restraining Law Prep Tutorial from publishing any defamatory content against the LegalEdge.

The Court has also ordered the takedown of any defamatory content against Gupta, including the circulation of a video titled "CLAT 2026 AIR 1 Geetali Gupta Controversy Exposed." Google and Meta Platforms have been directed to take down such disparaging and defamatory content within 72 hours.

The Court further restrained Law Prep Tutorial from using Gupta’s name and images in its promotional content on social and digital media posts. 

The Court, however, rejected an argument that the CLAT topper's personality rights need protection. The Court made it clear that its directions to order the takedown of defamatory content against Gupta is not based on any finding that her personality rights were at stake.

Justice Gedela reasoned that while courts have not yet concisely defined what constitutes "personality rights", such rights cannot be claimed by an individual on the basis of individual successes or milestones.

“If such 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 added.

In its plea before the Court, Toprankers Edtech Solutions/ LegalEdge submitted that the All India Rank (AIR) 1 of the CLAT 2026 undergraduate exam, Geetali Gupta, was their student and regularly attended their lectures and mock exams.

LegalEdge alleged that after the CLAT results were declared, another coaching institute called Law Prep Tutorial (LPT) launched a targeted online campaign to falsely claim credit for her success.

LPT allegedly used her name, deepfakes and morphed pictures generated by artificial intelligence on their digital, print and social media platforms without her consent.

Gupta later released a video crediting LegalEdge and adding that she was not associated with Law Prep Tutorial.

Law Prep is alleged to have then posted several posts and videos in which it accused LegalEdge of pressurising Gupta to make such statements as part of a marketing agreement.

LegalEdge sent Law Prep Tutorial a cease and desist notice to stop publishing such content. However, in response, Law Prep filed a criminal case against LegalEdge, as well as Geetali Gupta's father. LegalEdge has challenged the FIR registered on this complaint before the Rajasthan High Court. LegalEdge informed the Delhi High Court that this criminal case has now been stayed by the Rajasthan High Court. Justice Gedela took note of this, but did not comment further on the criminal case since it is pending before the Rajasthan High Court.

The Delhi High Court focused on whether the Law Prep Tutorial posts flagged by LegalEdge were defamatory. It expressed concerns that a student was being used as bait and as a pawn amid a rivalry between the coaching centres.

“The unauthorised use of the trademarks of the plaintiffs in such posts and video reels etc., to depict and portray the plaintiffs’ institute in a poor light and convey that its services are substandard, appears to constitute disparagement. It appears that the turf war between plaintiff nos.1 and 2 on one hand and defendant nos.1 and 2 on the other has encompassed and subsumed the plaintiff no.3 (CLAT topper) as a bait," the Court said.

The Court added that Law Prep Tutorial's posts were prima facie disparaging towards LegalEdge and was clearly avoidable. The use of LegalEdge's trademarks in such content without permission also appeared to be unauthorised use and would constitute trademark infringement, 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 (Toprankers Edtech Solutions, LegalEdge) and would constitute disparagement. It would be appropriate, therefore, to pass necessary orders protecting the rights of the plaintiffs," the Court held.

It, therefore, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Law Prep Tutorial from creating and publishing disparaging or defamatory that targets or tarnishes LegalEdge, as well as Geetali Gupta.

The Court has also sought Law Prep Tutorial's response in the matter.

The case is listed for further hearing on August 24.

Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak with advocates Ankur Khandelwal, Chirag Sharma, Nikhil Saurabh and Sidhhi appeared for Toprankers Edtech Solustions (LegalEdge).

[Read order]