HC warns misuse of personality rights

New Delhi: Amid a spate of orders granting protection to personality rights by courts, the Delhi High Court has cautioned against an over-expansive interpretation on the issue.In a recent order HC said not every individual achievement or academic success can be elevated to protection as “personality rights” as it would result in “absurdity and incongruity.”Justice Tushar Rao Gedela’s observation came while dealing with a commercial suit arising from a dispute between rival edtech platforms, involving allegations of defamation, disparagement, and unauthorised use of trademarks, as well as the use of a CLAT 2026 topper’s identity.It noted that expanding the scope of personality rights to cover every instance of success — such as a student securing a top rank in a competitive examination — would set an unworkable precedent.“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...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’,” Justice Gedela pointed out.The court said while personality rights have been recognised in cases involving individuals with sustained public recognition and commercial value attached to their persona, the threshold cannot be diluted to cover isolated academic accomplishments.It also lamented that the topper had been dragged into the dispute, noting that “her situation seems to be that of a pawn” in a larger rivalry between competing edtech entities.The observations came against the backdrop of a dispute involving claims over the success of a student who secured All India Rank 1 in CLAT 2026, with rival coaching institutes accusing each other of misleading publicity and defamatory campaigns.The court said the student had already clarified her position and requested that her name not be dragged into the controversy.While refraining from conclusively adjudicating the issue of personality rights at this stage, the order clarified that the present case could not be decided on that basis alone. The court found that the defendants’ posts, blogs and videos appeared to be disparaging and intended to tarnish the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs.