Defamation — Internet publication — Hyperlinking
Whether hyperlinking amounts to republication
Hyperlinking to an allegedly defamatory article does not ipso facto amount to republication — Hyperlink is content-neutral and only provides a reference unless the manner of hyperlinking itself conveys, endorses, or adopts the defamatory content — Each case must be examined on facts.
[Paras 2, 35–36, 66–70]
Defamation — Republication — Fresh cause of action
Article 75, Limitation Act, 1963
Every republication of a libel constitutes a fresh libel and gives rise to a fresh cause of action — Limitation of one year runs from the date of each republication — However, mere continued online availability is not republication.
[Paras 49–58]
Hyperlinking — Distinction between reference and publication
A hyperlink by itself does not communicate the defamatory content — It requires an independent act of the reader to access the content — Hyperlinking is akin to a reference or footnote, unless accompanied by contextual endorsement.
[Paras 69–70]
Order VII Rule 11 CPC — Rejection of plaint
Cause of action — Limitation — Order II Rule 2 CPC
Plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when hyperlinking and repeated references give rise to a triable issue on republication and limitation — Order II Rule 2 CPC does not apply to continuing or recurring causes of action.
[Paras 36–41, 59–65]
Defamation — Online publication — Continuing tort
Defamation through repeated acts of publication or republication constitutes a continuing tort — Each fresh act gives rise to a fresh cause of action under Section 22 of the Limitation Act.
[Paras 52–55, 58, 63]
Interim injunction — Defamation — Media reporting
Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC
Pre-trial injunction in defamation suits must be granted sparingly — Where defence of truth, fair comment, and public interest is raised and requires evidence, injunction cannot be granted mechanically.
[Paras 25–33, 34]
Freedom of speech vs right to reputation
Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21
Right to reputation is an intrinsic facet of Article 21 — At the same time, investigative journalism and source protection are integral to Article 19(1)(a) — Courts must balance both at the interim stage.
[Paras 3, 30–33]
II. ANALYSIS OF LAW
A. Concept of Publication in Defamation
The Court reiterates that publication is the sine qua non of defamation. Publication means communication of the defamatory matter to at least one person other than the plaintiff. Mere existence of content on the internet is insufficient unless there is an act of communication or republication (Paras 44–48).
B. Republication and Limitation
Relying on common-law principles and Indian precedent, the Court holds:
-
Every republication is a fresh libel.
-
Limitation under Article 75 runs from the date of such republication.
-
Section 22 of the Limitation Act applies to continuing torts (Paras 49–58).
However, the Court draws a clear distinction between:
-
Republication, and
-
Passive continued availability of content online.
C. Hyperlinking — Jurisprudential Clarification
This judgment is a landmark exposition on hyperlinking in Indian defamation law. The Court holds:
-
A hyperlink does not reproduce content.
-
It merely points to where content exists.
-
Hyperlinking becomes actionable only if it conveys endorsement, adoption, or contextual defamatory meaning (Paras 66–70).
The Court draws persuasive guidance from comparative jurisprudence (including Canadian law) while grounding its conclusion in Indian constitutional principles.
D. Order II Rule 2 CPC and Continuing Cause
The Court exhaustively analyses Order II Rule 2 CPC and reiterates that:
-
It applies only when the cause of action is identical.
-
In cases of continuous or recurring causes of action, the bar does not operate.
-
Hyperlink-based republication, if established, creates distinct causes of action (Paras 59–65).
E. Interim Injunction in Defamation
Applying the principles of Bonnard v. Perryman and Indian precedent, the Court holds that:
-
Pre-trial injunctions in defamation are exceptional.
-
Where defendants raise plausible defences of truth, fair comment, and public interest, the matter must ordinarily proceed to trial (Paras 25–33).
III. ANALYSIS OF FACTS (AS PER RECORD)
-
Plaintiffs are founders and entities associated with OFB Tech Private Limited and Oxyzo Financial Services Ltd., claiming high reputation and valuation (Paras 4–5).
-
Defendant Slowform Media Pvt. Ltd. publishes The Morning Context (Para 6).
-
Allegedly defamatory article was first published on 17-05-2023 and later hyperlinked in articles dated 08-11-2023, 29-12-2023, and 07-10-2024 (Paras 7–8, 14).
-
Earlier suit concerning a different article dated 07-10-2024 was pending (Paras 9–14).
-
Defendants raised objections of limitation and Order II Rule 2 CPC (Paras 16–17).
-
Plaintiffs asserted fresh cause of action due to hyperlinking (Paras 18–22).
IV. FINAL HOLDING / RESULT
-
Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dismissed — plaint discloses triable issues on republication and limitation.
-
Hyperlinking does not automatically amount to republication; issue requires factual examination.
-
Interim injunction declined at this stage — defences of truth, fair comment, and public interest require trial.
-
Both applications directed to proceed in accordance with law.
[Paras 64–65 and concluding directions]
Ratio (Succinct)
Hyperlinking to allegedly defamatory content does not per se constitute republication; only when hyperlinking conveys endorsement or defamatory meaning can it give rise to a fresh cause of action, and such determination is fact-dependent.
No comments:
Post a Comment