Resources
Trai holds back interconnect order
NEW DELHI: The broadcast and cable regulator, which was slated to issue an order on inter-connect agreements late this week, has held it back owing to various forms of protests against the must-provide clause relating to distribution activities.
A source in the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) admitted today that the regulator, which was supposed to come out with an inter-connect order, has deferred it “owing to feedback from the industry that are being studied now.”
While murmurs of criticism have surfaced both from the broadcasting and cable segments of the industry over a suggestion on making available TV channels to all platforms on a non-discriminatory basis, the Trai source also said that vested interests have to be located and neutralized.
It was all started by a cable ops’ body, National Cable & Telecom Association (NCTA), when it shot off a letter to Trai on 2 October itself pointing out that a suggestion on “Promotion of Competition in Distribution of TV channels” (clause-6.3) may actually turn tout to be `anti-competitive’
and lead to monopolistic trends.
Quoting from the Trai recommendations that “broadcasters will not be held to be in violation of the must-provide condition if it is ensured that the signals are provided through a particular designated agent/distributor or any other intermediary and not directly,” NCTA had contended that a scenario could not be ruled out that Star or Zee Telefilms, for example, provide exclusive signals to their affiliates (like Hathway, Siti Cable and RPG, which is an exclusive distributor of star channels in Kolkata) who could
continue the monopolistic trends.
Star India, meanwhile, is said to have put across its views to Trai on the must-provide clause in an informal manner, holding the position that making available all the content to everybody may not be that good an idea as programming acquisition is costly.
At a recent Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) meeting in Mumbai, too, some broadcasters has expressed their reservation on “must-provide”, which may get reflected during a scheduled interaction with the government that IBF is scheduled to have on Monday.
Though this must-provide clause is yet to become a law, it has seen its first defaulter in Indian pubcaster Doordarshan that refused to share two of its channels showing cricket matches with the Zee Group’s Dish TV, country’s first DTH service.
Asked about this aspect, a senior Trai official wryly said, “Well, the instance has been brought to our notice, but the must-provide clause is yet to become a law.”
Education
Delhi High Court orders Law Prep Tutorial to stop using CLAT topper’s identity
Google and Meta have 72 hours to pull content that a judge called a defamatory campaign against a rival coaching firm.
DELHI: India’s fiercely competitive law-entrance coaching industry has landed in court, and a Delhi judge has wasted little time in drawing battle lines.
The Delhi high court on April 13th passed an ad-interim order in favour of Toprankers EdTech Solutions Private Limited, which runs the coaching platform LegalEdge, and Geetali Gupta, the student who secured All India Rank 1 in the Common Law Admission Test 2026. The order, passed by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, restrains LPT EdTech Private Limited, which operates under the name Law Prep Tutorial, from using Gupta’s name, images or identity in any form across digital platforms.
A topper, a turf war and a rejected sponsorship deal
The dispute has its roots in a familiar story: a prized student, two rival coaching firms, and a falling-out over who gets the credit. According to the plaintiffs’ submissions, Gupta was enrolled in LegalEdge’s Champions Batch I programme and had credited the platform publicly for her result. Her association with Law Prep Tutorial was, the court was told, limited to mock tests and a handful of classes.
Following the declaration of results, Law Prep Tutorial allegedly approached Gupta and her family with an offer to sponsor her five-year college fees in exchange for exclusive association. The family declined. What followed, the plaintiffs say, was a sustained digital campaign against LegalEdge and against Gupta herself.
Content published across YouTube, LinkedIn, blogs and other social media platforms included a video titled “CLAT 2026 AIR 1 Geetali Gupta Controversy Exposed” and a blog post styled as an exposé of the rivalry between the two firms. The plaintiffs alleged these contained defamatory statements accusing LegalEdge of fraud, unethical practices and making false claims about toppers. AI-generated and morphed images were also said to have been circulated, including material falsely associating Gupta with Law Prep Tutorial and depicting LegalEdge’s directors in a damaging light.
What the court found
At the prima facie stage, Justice Gedela found that the blogs, posts, reels and other material on record appeared disparaging and designed to damage LegalEdge’s reputation. The defendants, the court observed, had prima facie carried out a defamatory campaign using content that appeared to have been published wilfully. The use of Gupta’s name and likeness, including AI-generated material, was found unjustified, particularly given that she had publicly credited LegalEdge and had asked the defendants to stop using her name. The court noted pointedly that the student had been drawn into the dispute as a “pawn.”
The orders
The directions are sweeping. Law Prep Tutorial and associated persons are restrained from publishing, sharing or disseminating any defamatory or derogatory content against LegalEdge across any digital platform. They are further barred from using Gupta’s name, identity or images in any form, including AI-generated or manipulated content. They are also prohibited from deleting or tampering with any internal data or communications relating to the campaign.
Critically, Google and Meta, covering YouTube, Facebook and Instagram, have been directed to disable, block access to, remove or suspend all identified content within 72 hours of the order being uploaded. The case, numbered CS(COMM) 344/2026, is listed before the joint registrar on July 14th and before the court on August 24th. Toprankers was represented by senior advocate J. Sai Deepak, alongside Ankur Khandelwal, Ravi Vaswani and Anchit Oswal, briefed by Zentrum Law Partners.
The case is a sharp reminder that in India’s cutthroat test-preparation industry, the fight for a topper’s endorsement can end up costing far more than a college sponsorship ever would.
