Hyperlinking to defamatory content constitutes republication, resetting the limitation period for suits, particularly in the context of defamation.

JUDGMENT :

INDEX TO THE JUDGMENT

I.A. 46557/2024 (under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC)

I.A. 2506/2025 (under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC)

PRELUDE

“In this race of technology, the law must be the charioteer steering the course of technology, not a bystander watching its lightning sprint. When the tide of technology rises, the law cannot remain anchored in the past.

1. As technology gallops, the law cannot afford to crawl. The ever- evolving technological landscape demands that legal principles adapt swiftly to address emerging challenges and prevent mischief. When traditional legal doctrines interact with the boundless and fluid nature of the internet, their application does not always yield results identical to those in the physical world. Yet, no matter how stark or unexpected these changes may be, they must ultimately be reconciled within the framework of the law of the land, ensuring that justice remains not just a relic of the past but a force that evolves to meet the demands of the present. At the same time, the judicial process is expected to arrive at just solutions to ever-evolving dynamic scenarios with a strict regard to the rule of law.

2. A pivotal question before this Court in the present case is whether hyperlinking to alleged defamatory content constitutes republication, thereby giving rise to a fresh cause of action. This inquiry is particularly significant given that hyperlinking serves as a fundamental mechanism for information sharing on the internet, often without any direct alteration or explicit endorsement of the linked content.

3. The Court, in this judgment, seeks to plant the sapling of the jurisprudence revolving around hyperlinking in the case of internet publication. Additionally, the adjudication of online defamation claim requires a delicate balancing act between two competing legal imperatives i.e., the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to protect one's reputation, which is deeply intertwined with human dignity and the right to life. In this context, the Court shall also consider the principles governing the grant of pre-trial injunctions in defamation suits, particularly where such relief is sought to prevent the continued dissemination of contentious content. Before embarking on the voyage of the legal position, it is pertinent to have a brief sojourn of the facts of the case.

SUIT IN NUTSHELL

4. Plaintiff no.1 is a businesswoman who co-founded a unicorn start-up called OFB Tech Private Limited i.e. plaintiff no.4 and Oxyzo Financial Services Ltd. i.e. plaintiff no.5. Plaintiff no.2 is a co-founder and CEO of plaintiff no.4 and plaintiff no.3 is also one of the co-founders of plaintiff no.4. Plaintiff no.4 claims to have a valuation of Rs.44,000 Crores.

5. The plaintiffs before this Court claim that they are high net worth individuals, derived from their holdings in the company, and have a high reputation in society. There have been various assertions in the plaint with respect to financial capacity and the growth journey of plaintiff nos.4 and 5 under the purported leadership of plaintiff nos.1 to 3, an illustration of which is not necessary in the present