When Hyperlinking Constitutes Republication In Defamation Cases? Delhi High Court Explains

In a ruling addressing defamation in the digital age, the Delhi High Court has held that hyperlinking a defamatory publication may amount to republication if it goes beyond mere reference and contributes to the defamatory meaning.

The Single Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled that the determination of whether a hyperlink constitutes republication depends on the mode, manner, and context in which it is embedded, emphasizing that there is no rigid formula for such assessment.

The Court made the observation while hearing a defamation suit filed by OFB Tech Private Limited against The Morning Context over an article titled "The Work Culture of Business Does Not Like to Talk About," published in 2023. OFB Tech contended that a 2024 article titled “OfBusiness Co-Founders and Management Allegedly Assaulted an Employee, Says FIR," which hyperlinked the 2023 publication, amounted to republication and gave rise to a fresh cause of action.

Hyperlinking as Republication

The Single Bench observed that hyperlinking a publication can constitute republication when it does more than simply reference an earlier article. "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," the Court held.

The Single Judge further clarified that the mode, manner, and context of hyperlinking must reveal an element of independent expression, even if subtle, in addition to the mere act of hyperlinking, for it to constitute republication. The Court, however, emphasized that there is no universal formula to determine whether a hyperlink is just a reference or amounts to republication; the facts and context of each case must be examined.

Balancing the competing interests of freedom of speech and expression and the laws of defamation in the digital world, the Court held that if hyperlinking extends the reach of a defamatory publication, potentially damaging the reputation of the affected party, it would amount to republication.

Furthermore, the Court stated, "If the hyperlinking does not merely make a reference to the earlier article but 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, then it does not amount to a mere reference; rather, it amounts to republication."

Impact on Digital Media and Defamation Cases

The judgment highlights the nuanced approach required in digital defamation cases. The Court acknowledged that treating every hyperlink as republication could have a chilling effect on digital communication, while disregarding hyperlinking as a mode of republication could allow defamatory content to be widely disseminated without consequence.

"A hyperlinker may or may not be liable as a republisher, and the determination would eventually depend upon the context in which the previous publication has been hyperlinked, the content and manner in which the 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," the Court stated.

In the present case, the Court found that The Morning Context did not employ hyperlinks as mere references but strategically embedded them in a way that reinforced an alleged defamatory narrative. It observed that the hyperlinks, their strategic placement, and the linguistic cues employed indicated a deliberate effort to sustain and propagate a defamatory construct against OFB Tech.

Interim Injunction Denied

On the issue of an interim injunction, the Court ruled against granting injunctive relief at this stage. It noted that The Morning Context had reported on the work culture of OFB Tech by citing specific instances and testimonies, invoking the defenses of truth and fair comment.

The Court observed that granting an injunction at the preliminary stage would prejudice the rights of the parties, as they must be given an opportunity to substantiate their claims in a full trial. "An injunctive relief at this stage would amount to taking away the right of The Morning Context to prove that the content published by it was justified and based on truth," the Court stated.

"Moreover, from a journalistic point of view, the article does not appear to fall in the category of reckless reporting and is claimed to be source-based, context-specific reporting. To injunct a publication of this nature would disturb the equilibrium that this Court must strike between the freedom of speech and the right to reputation and would unjustifiably tilt the scale in favour of the latter, at the cost of the former," it added.

It emphasized that defamation proceedings must balance the freedom of speech with the right to reputation, and injuncting a publication at an early stage would tilt the scales unfairly against journalistic expression. The Court ruled that The Morning Context's article did not appear to fall into the category of reckless reporting, as it was based on sources and contextual reporting.

Further, the Court noted that in defamation cases, the doctrine of substantial truth takes precedence over minor factual inconsistencies. "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 said.

Accordingly, the Court rejected OFB Tech’s application seeking an interim injunction against The Morning Context, affirming that the publication could continue to defend its reporting under the defamation laws.

Cause Title: Ms. Ruchi Kalra & Ors. v. Slowform Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [Neutral Citation No. 2025: DHC: 2024]

Appearance:-

Plaintiff: Advocates Tanmaya Mehta, Sanyam Khetarpal, Lisa Sankrit

Defendant: Senior Advocate Kirtiman Singh, Advocates Kushal Gupta, Akanksha Singh, Maulik Khurana, Rajeev Khatana

Click here to read/download the Judgment