In a pivotal ruling that explores the evolving intersection between defamation law and internet communication, the Delhi High Court has addressed the pivotal legal question: Does hyperlinking defamatory content on the internet amount to a fresh act of defamation, giving rise to a new cause of action?
The case, Ruchi Kalra & Ors. v. Slowform Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [CS(OS) 944/2024], was adjudicated by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, who delivered a detailed and precedent-setting judgment on March 24, 2025.
Background of the Case
The plaintiffs include Ruchi Kalra, her husband Ashish Mohapatra, and Nitin Jain — co-founders of the fintech unicorn OFB Tech Pvt. Ltd. and Oxyzo Financial Services Ltd., collectively valued at ₹44,000 crore. They alleged that an article published by The Morning Context, an online magazine operated by Slowform Media Pvt. Ltd., was defamatory and harmed their reputation.
The article in question, published on May 17, 2023, was titled “The work culture of OfBusiness doesn’t like to talk about” and allegedly painted a negative picture of the plaintiffs’ company practices. This article was later hyperlinked in three subsequent pieces published on the platform — dated November 8, 2023, December 29, 2023, and October 7, 2024.
The plaintiffs sought an injunction for the removal of the original article and damages of ₹2.02 crore, arguing that the repeated hyperlinking constituted republication, which gave rise to a fresh cause of action within the limitation period.
Legal Issues Involved
- Does hyperlinking a defamatory article constitute a new publication and hence a fresh cause of action for defamation?
- Is the suit barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), given that a previous related suit was already filed?
- Is the suit barred by limitation under Article 75 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
Arguments by Parties
For the Plaintiffs (Kalra & Ors.):
Advocates Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, and Ms. Lisa Sankrit argued that each act of hyperlinking the original defamatory article gave rise to a fresh republication, thus triggering a new limitation period. They cited that their previous suit (CS(OS) 825/2024) concerned a different article dated October 7, 2024, and not the May 2023 article.
For the Defendants (Slowform Media & Ors.):
Led by Senior Advocate Mr. Kirtiman Singh, with Advocates Mr. Kushal Gupta, Ms. Akanksha Singh, Mr. Maulik Khurana, and Mr. Rajeev Khatana, the defense argued that:
- The suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC, since the plaintiffs should have raised all claims in their earlier suit.
- The original article was published in May 2023, so any suit filed after one year is time-barred.
- Hyperlinking does not amount to republication and is akin to mere referencing.
Court’s Observations
Justice Kaurav rejected the defendants’ preliminary objections and conducted an in-depth analysis of “hyperlinking” in the digital context.
“Hyperlinking is not always a mere reference. In the context of defamation, it can constitute a republication if the intent is to direct readers afresh to the defamatory material,” the Court held.
Drawing on Indian and foreign jurisprudence — including Canadian Supreme Court’s ruling in Crookes v. Newton and domestic precedents such as Arvind Kejriwal v. State and Khawar Butt v. Asif Nazir Mir — the Court clarified that:
- If hyperlinking is done with the intent to reach a new audience or revive readership, it may be considered republication.
- Each such act can reset the limitation period, giving the aggrieved party the right to sue afresh.
The Court emphasized:
“The law cannot remain anchored in the past. When the tide of technology rises, the law must be the charioteer steering the course, not a bystander watching its lightning sprint.”
The Court further stated that in the case of continuing torts, including repeated online publication or hyperlinking, a fresh limitation period begins with each such act.
Decision
- The Court dismissed the defendants’ application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, ruling that the suit was not barred by limitation or by Order II Rule 2 CPC.
- It held that the plaintiff had a prima facie cause of action based on hyperlinking.
- The Court directed the matter to proceed to trial on merits, stating that it involved substantial issues of fact and law.
