New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a defamation plea against online publication The Morning Context, saying that “journalistic expression… cannot be subjected to an exacting standard of mathematical precision” unless there is evidence of “malice, reckless disregard for the truth, or gross negligence in reportage”.
The bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was hearing a plea Monday filed by businesswoman Ruchi Kalra, co-founder of unicorn start-up OFB Tech Private Ltd, who alleged that, in May 2023, The Morning Context published a defamatory article on the company’s work culture and shared it on its various social media platforms.
The plea highlighted several instances where the article had been hyperlinked within other stories, including in a report published in November 2023. In December of that year, the article was also recommended on a list of its best stories.
Kalra sought Rs 22 crore as damages as well as an injunction on the publishing of said article.
The main question before the court was whether hyperlinking to alleged defamatory content constitutes republication, giving rise to a fresh cause of action. The court said this question was particularly significant, since hyperlinking serves as a fundamental mechanism for information sharing on the internet.
The court underlined that the mode, manner and context of hyperlinking must reveal an element of independent expression, even if subtle, for it to constitute republication. However, it added, “there can be no straight jacket formula to determine whether the hyperlink is just a reference or it is a republication.” It would have to be seen in the context of each case.
What are hyperlinks & can they be defamatory
The court said hyperlinks were a fundamental feature of the World Wide Web, which involves embedding clickable elements—such as words, phrases, or images—within a digital document. When activated, they direct the user to another location within the same document or to an entirely different web resource.
“This mechanism not only facilitates efficient information retrieval but also enriches the user’s experience by providing immediate access to related content,” the court noted.
Expressing its aim of balancing the competing interests of freedom of speech and and laws of defamation in the digital world, the court held that if the hyperlinking of the defamatory article is done “enabling the reach of the defamatory article or publication which has the potentiality of hampering the reputation of the defendant then it would amount to republication”.
Moreover, 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”, it could have the potential to hamper one’s reputation, and, therefore, does not amount to a mere reference, but instead a republication.
In common law, an act of republication of defamatory content has been placed on the same pedestal as an act of original publication. “A person responsible for the republication of defamatory content cannot take refuge on the pretext of an already existing publication,” the court also noted.
In its 24 March ruling, the court said that a meticulous dissection of one of the articles from October 2024 revealed that these hyperlinks were “not employed as mere references, but rather, they serve as integral components of the alleged defamatory construct woven by the defendant”.
What the court ruled
Highlighting how The Morning Context had embedded the hyperlinks, their strategic positioning within the article, and the linguistic cues employed to direct the reader‘s attention towards them, the court said these pointed to a “concerted effort to sustain and propagate an alleged defamatory narrative against the plaintiff”.
“The manner and context in which hyperlinks appear in the publication amount to independent expression, not even subtle, and not merely an act of referencing. Such deliberate structuring of the article, when viewed holistically, demonstrates that the defendant has actively sought to bolster its allegations,” the court noted.
However, the court rejected OFB’s plea seeking an interim injunction against The Morning Context, saying that the petitioners had to demonstrate not just the possibility of reputational loss, but also that the publication is rooted in falsity and cannot be termed as truthful, given that truthfulness and fair comment are pleaded as defences to defamation.
“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,” the court said in its 68-page ruling.
“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.”
(Edited by Sanya Mathur)
Also Read: At the centre of a plea against bike-taxi app Rapido, the fight for equal access to digital services