The Rajasthan High Court has stayed all investigation in a criminal case arising out of a bitter dispute between two law entrance coaching institutes over credit for mentoring the topper of CLAT 2026, observing that the matter was essentially a business rivalry that should not have been criminalised, especially involving a minor student.
The case centres on Geetali Gupta, a 17-year-old student from Sri Ganganagar who secured All India Rank 1 in CLAT 2026 — an achievement widely celebrated across the aspirant community. Gupta’s result, which saw her score 112.75 marks out of 119, went viral on social media and drew attention to her preparation journey.
Certified Cyber Crime Investigator Course Launched by Centre for Police Technology
However, behind the celebratory headlines, a controversy emerged between rival coaching institutes Toprankers-LegalEdge and another coaching centre — with competing claims about who deserved credit for mentoring the AIR 1 student.
According to the FIR registered in Jodhpur (FIR No. 04/26), one coaching institute alleged that Gupta and her father had communicated to them about a lucrative offer from the rival institute in return for an endorsement. It further claimed that Gupta’s father threatened to hurt the reputation of the complainant institute when the dispute escalated.
High Court’s Reasoning
Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu emphasised during the hearing that on the face of the FIR, the dispute “appears to be a fight over claiming the credit of a top ranker and seems to be more of a business rivalry between the two institutions”. The Court expressed concern that such a conflict should not have been transformed into criminal litigation, especially involving a minor student.
The order noted:
“Be that as it may, on the face of it… this petition involves a minor girl and… appears to be a fight over claiming the credit of a top ranker… It is expected from the parties to settle the matter at the earliest so that this face-off does not enter the next phase.”
Taking a protective view, the Court stayed the ongoing investigation and directed both parties to participate in mediation proceedings. It also mandated that Gupta’s father, as her natural guardian, should appear before the Mediation Centre for settlement talks. The mediation was scheduled for January 21, 2026, with a further listing on February 16, 2026, to consider the mediator’s report.
The High Court also granted leave for notices to be served through electronic modes, such as WhatsApp or email, recognising the practicalities of these modern communications in legal proceedings.
Legal and Social Implications
Legal experts say the Court’s approach underscores a broader judicial discomfort with transforming commercial rivalries within the coaching industry into criminal cases, particularly when students are drawn into the dispute. In recent years, the law entrance coaching sector has seen fierce competition, with institutions frequently showcasing their “toppers” in marketing campaigns — sometimes leading to public perceptions that coaching credit equates to student success.
Critics have noted that such promotional strategies can mislead aspirants and parents, sometimes extending to exaggerated claims about associations with high-rankers.
This backdrop adds complexity to the present case, where both branding and financial interests may have influenced how institutions claimed association with high achievers.
Voices from the Ground
While the FIR alleges pressure tactics by coaching entities, public reactions — especially in law student communities — reflect skepticism about coaching institutes’ aggressive claims.
One aspirant commented on a forum that attempting to drag a student into a legal dispute over coaching affiliation is “petty” and could harm the welfare of the learner.
Next Steps
As the investigation remains stayed, all eyes are now on the mediation process. The outcome will determine whether the matter can be resolved amicably outside the criminal justice system, preserving the student’s interests and preventing further escalation.
If mediation fails or if either party is dissatisfied with its outcome, further legal proceedings could resume — but the Rajasthan High Court’s initial order makes clear that courts are wary of extending criminal processes into commercial disagreements lacking serious criminal elements.
About the author – Rehan Khan is a law student and legal journalist with a keen interest in cybercrime, digital fraud, and emerging technology laws. He writes on the intersection of law, cybersecurity, and online safety, focusing on developments that impact individuals and institutions in India.
