NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has cautioned against an overly broad interpretation of “personality rights,” observing that not every achievement—such as academic success—can be elevated to that level of legal protection, as doing so would lead to “absurdity and incongruity.”
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made the remarks while hearing a commercial dispute between rival edtech platforms involving allegations of defamation, disparagement, trademark infringement, and the use of a CLAT 2026 topper’s identity in promotional campaigns. The case revolves around competing claims over the success of a minor student who secured All India Rank 1 in the examination, with both sides accusing each other of misleading publicity and reputational harm.
The court emphasized that extending personality rights to every instance of success—such as topping a competitive exam—would create an unworkable precedent. It noted that if such a view were accepted, every student or individual achieving distinction in any field could claim personality rights protection, which would dilute the concept and make it impractical.
The bench clarified that personality rights have traditionally been recognized in cases involving individuals who enjoy sustained public recognition and whose persona carries commercial value. However, isolated accomplishments, even significant ones like academic rankings, do not automatically meet this threshold. The court also acknowledged that the law has not precisely defined personality rights but stressed the need to avoid expanding their scope beyond reasonable limits.
Addressing the facts of the case, the court observed that the minor student appeared to be caught in the middle of a larger conflict between competing edtech companies, describing her role as that of a “pawn” in an “acrimonious professional rivalry.” It further noted that the student had already clarified her position and requested that her name not be used in the dispute.
The court found, on a prima facie basis, that the defendants’ online content—including posts, blogs, and videos—was disparaging and intended to harm the plaintiffs’ reputation and goodwill. It also noted the alleged unauthorized use of the registered trademark “LegalEdge.” (IANS)
Also Read: Arvind Kejriwal, Aam Aadmi Party tried to bully Delhi High Court judge: BJP