New Delhi: Delhi High Court has dismissed defamation petition against online publication Morning referenceSaying that “the expression of journalism … cannot be subject to an accurate standard of mathematical precision” unless “malice, negligent disregard for truth, or gross negligence in the report” is not proof.
The bench of Justice Purushadra Kumar Kaurav was listening to a petition on Monday, which co-founder, the co-founder of Unicorn Start-OF-Tech Private Ltd, who said in May 2023, said, said, said, said, Morning reference Published a infamous article on the company’s work culture and shared it on its various social media platforms.
The petition highlighted several examples, where the article was hyperlinking within other stories, including a report published in November 2023. In December of that year, the article was also recommended in the list of its best stories.
Kalra also sought prohibitory orders on the publication of the said article with a loss of Rs 22 crore.
The main question before the court was whether the hyperlinking calculation for the alleged defamation material forms a new cause of action. The court stated that this question was particularly important, as hyperlinking serves as a fundamental mechanism to share information on the Internet.
The court underlined that the mode, methods and references of hyperlinking should reveal an element of independent expression, even if subtle, to form the Republic for this. However, it said, “There can be no straight jacket formula to determine whether hyperlink is just a reference or it is a republic.” This must be seen in terms of each case.
What are hyperlinks and can they be defamation
The court stated that the hyperlink was a fundamental feature of the World Wide Web, including embedding clicking elements – such as words, phrases, or images – with a digital document. When active, they direct the user to another location within the same document or for a completely separate web resources.
“This mechanism not only facilitates efficient information recovery, but also enriches the user’s experience by providing immediate access to the related material,” the court said.
Expressing its purpose to balance the competitive interests of the rules of freedom of speech and defamation in the digital world, the court said that if the hyperlinking of the defamation article has the ability to enable the access article or publication of defamation or obstruct the reputation of the defense, it would be the amount for revaluation “.
In addition, if the hyperlinking not only references to the earlier article, but, it essentially “repeats, defines, tells, tells, tells, tells, or supports the content of the earlier article, providing a fresh impression, which is refreshed and otherwise the defamation material of the earlier article can be emphasized about the reader, but not a person’s discomfort, but it is not that a person of a person can be stressed. so.
In general law, an Act of the Republic of defamation material has been placed on the same pedestal as an act of original publication. The court also said, “A person responsible for the republic of defamation material cannot take shelter on the pretext of pre -existing publication.”
In its 24 March judgment, the court stated that a careful dissection of one of the October 2024 articles revealed that these hyperlinks were “not only employed as reference, rather, they serve as integral components of alleged defamation manufacturing woven by the defendant”.
What decision did the court ruin
In the morning context, how the linguistic signals employed to direct the hyperlink, their strategic position within the article, and the reader’s attention were embedded, the court said that “a concrete effort to maintain and propagate an alleged defamation story against the plaintiff”.
“The way hyperlink publication appears in the publishing amount for independent expression in the amount, is also not subtle, and is not only a function of reference. Such a deliberate structure of the article, when seen as a holistic manner, shows that the defendant has actively demanded to raise his allegations,” the court said.
However, the court dismissed the OFB plea, demanding interim prohibitory orders. Morning referenceSaying that the petitioners had not only to demonstrate the possibility of iconic loss, but also that the publication has been vested in mythology and cannot be called truth, given that truth and fair comments are argued as a defense for defamation.
The court said in its 68-foot judgment, “In addition, from the point of view of journalism, the article does not fall under the category of careless reporting and it is claimed to have sources-based, reference-specific reporting.”
“This nature will disturb a publication of nature will disturb the balance that this court should strike between freedom of speech and the right to reputation, and will unknowingly tilt the scale in the latter side, on the previous cost.”
(Edited by Sanya Mathur)
Also read: At the center of a petition against bike-taxi app Rapido, fight for equal access to digital services