{"id":382488,"date":"2026-04-27T16:30:09","date_gmt":"2026-04-27T11:00:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=382488"},"modified":"2026-04-27T16:51:23","modified_gmt":"2026-04-27T11:21:23","slug":"del-hc-personality-rights-single-academic-success","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/27\/del-hc-personality-rights-single-academic-success\/","title":{"rendered":"Does a Single Top Rank Give Rise to Personality Rights? Delhi High Court Weighs In"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> While examining the grievance of Plaintiff 3, CLAT 2026 AIR 1 candidate, regarding misuse of her personality rights over single academic achievement, in the application filed by the plaintiffs, Toprankers Edtech Solutions (P) Ltd., seeking ex parte ad interim injunction against the defendants for launching blatant and malicious campaign thereby tarnishing their goodwill and reputation, the Single Judge Bench of Tushar Rao Gedela, J.<\/span>, declined to protect plaintiff’s personality rights, holding that a single achievement, such as securing a top rank, does not automatically confer enforceable personality rights.<\/p>\n

However, the Court opined that it was not appropriate for the defendants to carry out any campaign, whether defamatory or otherwise, in Plaintiff 3’s name and therefore, restrained the defendants from using the name, image, or likeness of Plaintiff 3, including any AI-generated or manipulated content.<\/p>\n

Also Read: Delhi High Court Protects “Toprankers Edtech” from Defamatory Campaign by Edtech Rival Platform; Restrains Misuse of CLAT 2026 Topper’s Identity<\/a><\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/h3>\n

Plaintiff 1 is an established edtech company engaged in coaching and test preparation services under brands such as “Toprankers,” “LegalEdge,” “Creative Edge”, “Judiciary Gold” and “SuperGrads”. Plaintiff 2 is its franchisee operating prominently in Delhi. Plaintiff 3 is a minor student who secured All India Rank 1 in CLAT 2026.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs claimed significant commercial presence, including thousands of enrolled students and substantial revenue generation, particularly in Delhi-NCR. It was claimed that Plaintiff 3 applied for and was selected for a special batch of meritorious students called “CLAT 2026 | Champions batch I” in February 2025. Plaintiff 3 stated that she had limited interaction with Defendant 1 through certain mock tests under its package “CLAT DLP (Distance Learning Program) 2026.”<\/p>\n

After Plaintiff 3 secured AIR 1 in CLAT 2026, a reaction video of her result was recorded and shared by Plaintiff 1, gaining wide publicity across platforms including major media outlets.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs alleged that Defendant 1 attempted to portray Plaintiff 3 as its student and even offered to sponsor her entire college fees in exchange for exclusive promotional rights, which was refused. Despite this, the defendants allegedly began using her name and morphed images to claim credit for her success.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs contended that the defendants launched a coordinated defamatory campaign across platforms including YouTube, blogs, LinkedIn, and Instagram. The content included a video titled “CLAT 2026 AIR 1 Geetali Gupta Controversy Exposed” and multiple posts alleging fraud, deceit, and unethical practices by the plaintiffs. Further, it was alleged that AI-generated and morphed images were circulated portraying the plaintiffs as being behind bars, despite no such arrest having taken place. The plaintiffs also pointed to social media posts and news publications with headlines such as “FIR filed against Toprankers,” alongside visual depictions reinforcing the defamatory narrative.<\/p>\n

After Plaintiff 1 issued cease-and-desist notice dated 5 January 2026 requesting to take down the defamatory content, the defendants allegedly filed a false and frivolous FIR in Jodhpur against the plaintiffs and Plaintiff 3’s family. Despite a stay of the FIR by the Rajasthan High Court, the defendants continued publishing defamatory material.<\/p>\n

Plaintiffs claimed that with respect to Plaintiff 3, the defendants had committed the following unlawful acts:<\/p>\n