The Delhi High Court has clarified the legal position regarding the hyperlinking of publications and its implications for defamation laws. The Court ruled that hyperlinking an article can, in certain cases, amount to republication if it contributes to the spread of defamatory content.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav stated:
“If the hyperlinking of a publication is done in a manner in which it refers to the content that conveys defamatory meaning, not because a reference was created, but because, if understood in context, it actually expressed something defamatory, then it would amount to republication.”
Context Matters in Determining Republication
The Court emphasized that not every hyperlink can be considered a republication. The mode, manner, and context in which the hyperlink appears must show an element of independent expression beyond a mere reference.
“However, there can be no straight jacket formula to determine whether the hyperlink is just a reference or it is a republication. The same would have to be seen bearing in mind the facts and context of each case.”
This ruling strikes a balance between the right to freedom of speech and expression and the necessity to regulate defamation in the digital age.
Hyperlinking and Defamation: Key Considerations
The Court held that if a hyperlink serves as a means to increase the reach of defamatory content and has the potential to harm the reputation of an individual or entity, it can be treated as republication.
Read also: Supreme Court Directs Inquiry Into Indraprastha Apollo Hospital's Free Treatment For Poor Patients
“Furthermore, if the hyperlinking does not merely make a reference to the earlier article, rather, it essentially repeats, redefines, explains, paraphrases, or endorses the content of the earlier article, thereby giving a fresh impression and refreshing the memory or otherwise emphasizing to the reader about the defamatory content of the earlier article, thereby having the potentiality to hamper the reputation of the defendant, then it does not amount to a mere reference, rather it amounts to republication.”
Case Background: OFB Tech vs. The Morning Context
The ruling came in response to a defamation suit filed by OFB Tech Private Limited against the magazine The Morning Context. The dispute arose over an article published in 2023 titled The Work Culture of OfBusiness Does Not Like to Talk About, which was later hyperlinked in a 2024 article titled OfBusiness Co-Founders and Management Allegedly Assaulted an Employee, Says FIR.
OFB Tech argued that the 2024 article's hyperlink amounted to republication, thereby giving rise to a fresh cause of action.
Read also:
Court’s Observations on Hyperlinking in Digital Journalism
The Court acknowledged the complexities of digital journalism, noting that placing every hyperlink under the ambit of republication could hinder the free flow of information on the internet. However, it also warned that considering every hyperlink as a mere reference would allow defamatory content to spread unchecked.
“A hyperlinker may or may not be liable as a re-publisher and the determination would eventually depend upon the context in which the previous publication has been hyperlinked, the content and manner in which hyperlink occurs in the publication, any subtle implication or endorsement or repetition having the potential effect of targeting the reputation of a person etc. will be the predominant factors to be considered.”
Upon reviewing the 2024 article, the Court noted that the hyperlinks were not simply references but were strategically embedded to reinforce the allegedly defamatory narrative.
Read also: AAP Leader Somnath Bharti Challenges BJP's Satish Upadhyay’s Victory in Delhi High Court
“Such deliberate structuring of the article, when viewed holistically, demonstrates that the defendant has actively sought to bolster its allegations by interweaving past publications within the article dated 07.10.2024, ensuring a sustained and continuous alleged defamatory impact upon the reputation of the plaintiff.”
Thus, the Court held that the 2024 publication, by hyperlinking the 2023 article, amounted to republication and created a fresh cause of action.
Interim Injunction Denied
Regarding OFB Tech’s request for an interim injunction against The Morning Context, the Court ruled against it. It observed that The Morning Context had reported on OFB’s work culture using specific instances and testimonies, making their defense of truth and fair comment relevant.
The Court stated:
“At the preliminary stage, the issuance of an injunction would be prejudicial to the rights of the parties involved, who must be afforded an adequate opportunity to substantiate their respective claims within the framework of a comprehensive trial.”
Granting an injunction at this stage would unfairly restrict The Morning Context from proving the authenticity of its reports.
Defamation and the Role of Journalism
The Court acknowledged that journalism involves reporting based on sources and context. It stated that a publication should not be subjected to overly stringent standards unless there is clear evidence of malice, reckless disregard for the truth, or gross negligence.
“A journalistic expression, in the absence of prima facie evidence demonstrating malice, reckless disregard for the truth, or gross negligence in reportage, cannot be subjected to an exacting standard of mathematical precision.”
The Court highlighted that minor factual inconsistencies do not automatically make a publication defamatory, provided that the essence of the content is based on truth and material accuracy.
“The doctrine of substantial truth takes precedence against minor factual inconsistencies that do not render a publication defamatory so long as the gist or sting of the publication is claimed to be based on truth and facts pleaded to be materially accurate.”
Title: MS. RUCHI KALRA & Ors v. SLOWFORM MEDIA PVT. LTD & Ors
