Delhi High Court Restrains Law Prep Tutorial from Using CLAT 2026 Topper’s Identity, Orders Takedown of Defamatory Content Within 72 Hours

The Delhi High Court has passed an ad-interim injunction restraining Law Prep Tutorial and its affiliates from publishing or disseminating defamatory and disparaging content against LegalEdge, while also prohibiting the use of CLAT 2026 All India Rank 1 holder Geetali Gupta’s name, identity, or images, including AI-generated or morphed content, across any platform.

The Court further directed intermediaries such as Google and Meta to remove or disable access to the identified content within 72 hours, observing prima facie that the material formed part of a coordinated campaign aimed at tarnishing the plaintiffs’ reputation.

The order was passed by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on April 13, 2026 in a commercial suit, granting ex parte ad-interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

The Court restrained the defendants from publishing defamatory content, using the student’s identity, or interfering with relevant records, and directed intermediaries to take down the impugned content within 72 hours.

It also directed preservation of all data relating to the alleged campaign and issued summons in the suit, granting time for filing written statements and completion of pleadings.

The suit was filed by Toprankers EdTech Solutions Pvt Ltd, which operates LegalEdge, along with its franchisee and the student who secured AIR 1 in CLAT 2026.

The plaintiffs contended that the student was enrolled in LegalEdge’s structured coaching programme and had actively participated in its classes, mentorship sessions, and mock examinations.

Her association with Law Prep Tutorial, on the other hand, was stated to be limited to a distance learning programme involving mock tests and a few classes.

According to the pleadings, following the declaration of CLAT 2026 results, the defendants allegedly approached the student and her family with an offer to sponsor her five-year legal education in exchange for exclusive promotional association.

Upon refusal, it was alleged that the defendants initiated a series of publications across digital platforms, including YouTube videos, blogs, LinkedIn posts, and social media content, claiming credit for the student’s success and making allegations against LegalEdge and its directors.

The plaintiffs alleged that such content contained serious imputations of fraud, unethical practices, and misrepresentation, and was accompanied by AI-generated and morphed images.

As reflected in screenshots and materials placed on record, including those reproduced in the order, the content included visual depictions portraying the plaintiffs as being “behind bars” and posts suggesting criminal wrongdoing, despite no such arrest having taken place.

It was further alleged that the defendants used the student’s identity without consent, including through synthetic media, and continued to do so despite her explicit communication requesting them to refrain.

The plaintiffs also referred to a cease and desist notice issued to the defendants, following which an FIR was lodged in Jodhpur against the plaintiffs and the student’s family.

The Court noted that the proceedings in the FIR had been stayed by the Rajasthan High Court.

At a prima facie stage, the Court observed that the blogs, posts, and video reels appeared disparaging and indicative of an attempt to bring disrepute to the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs.

It noted that the defendants had openly referred to the plaintiffs and the student in a manner suggesting involvement in an “evil design,” which did not appear justified at this stage.

The Court further found that the use of AI-generated images and association of the student with the defendants was prima facie unjustified.

Significantly, the Court observed that the dispute appeared to arise out of professional rivalry between competing coaching institutions, but held that such rivalry could not justify statements that lower the reputation of a rival.

It noted that the student had been unnecessarily drawn into the dispute and described her position as that of a “pawn.”

On the issue of personality rights, the Court clarified that the protection granted in the present case was not premised on a broad recognition of personality rights.

It cautioned against expanding the concept to include every individual achievement, observing that a single instance of academic success would not automatically confer enforceable personality rights. The Court referred to precedent on publicity rights, including D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, to emphasize that such rights arise where a persona acquires independent commercial value and recognition.

However, the Court held that irrespective of personality rights, the continued use of the student’s identity, particularly after her explicit disassociation and clarification crediting LegalEdge, was inappropriate. It also found prima facie infringement in the unauthorized use of the plaintiffs’ registered trademark “LegalEdge” in disparaging content.

Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants from publishing or hosting any defamatory or infringing content, from using the student’s name or images in any form, including AI-generated material, and from tampering with relevant records. It further directed Google and Meta to remove or block access to the identified content within 72 hours of the order being uploaded.

Advs appearing for the Petitioners: Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak, with Ankur Khandelwal, Chirag Sharma, Nikhil Saurabh, and Sidhhi, Advocates.

Case Title: Toprankers EdTech Solutions Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. LPT EdTech Pvt Ltd & Ors.

Bench: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Date of Judgment: 13.04.2026