Supreme Court appoints Justice Kurian Joseph to mediate IAS–IPS defamation dispute
NEW DELHI, June 12: The Supreme Court on Friday referred the long-running defamation dispute between Karnataka cadre IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri and…
Rohini Sindhuri (L)and IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil (R)
NEW DELHI, June 12: The Supreme Court on Friday referred the long-running defamation dispute between Karnataka cadre IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri and IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil to mediation, observing that the continuing legal battle was damaging the careers of both officers.
A Bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph as mediator to facilitate an amicable settlement between the two officers.
“Both of them are destroying each other’s careers,” Justice Sharma observed during the hearing.
Passing the order, the Bench said:
“In the present case, this court is of the opinion that the matter can be resolved by way of mediation. Justice Kurian Joseph, retired Supreme Court judge, is appointed as the mediator. The parties shall appear before Justice Kurian Joseph. By way of interim relief, further proceedings in respect of both the cases between the parties shall remain stayed.”
Defamation Battle Between Senior Officers
The dispute stems from public allegations exchanged by the two officers in 2023, which eventually led to civil and criminal defamation proceedings being initiated by both sides against each other.
The latest proceedings before the Supreme Court arose after the Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition filed by Rohini Sindhuri challenging criminal defamation proceedings initiated on a complaint filed by D Roopa Moudgil.
The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision to take cognisance of the complaint, finding that the Magistrate had adequately examined the material on record before issuing process.
High Court Refused to Quash Proceedings
Sindhuri had argued before the Karnataka High Court that her statements were protected under the defence of good faith. However, the High Court rejected the contention, noting that a similar argument had earlier been advanced by Moudgil in separate proceedings.
The High Court held that whether statements were made in good faith or for public good were questions of fact that could only be decided after evidence was led during trial.
It further observed that issues requiring factual determination could not be examined at the preliminary stage while considering a plea for quashing criminal proceedings.
How the Dispute Began
The controversy began in February 2023 when Moudgil allegedly posted a series of comments on Facebook concerning Sindhuri.
Among the allegations was a claim that Sindhuri had constructed a bungalow in Bengaluru’s Jalahalli area without disclosing it in the immovable property returns that All India Service officers are required to file periodically.
Following the posts, Sindhuri filed a civil defamation suit seeking an injunction against Moudgil from making what she described as false and defamatory statements. She also initiated criminal defamation proceedings under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
A trial court took cognizance of the complaint, and subsequent challenges by Moudgil failed before the Karnataka High Court.
Fresh Complaint by Moudgil
After earlier proceedings before the Supreme Court were withdrawn and the allegedly defamatory social media posts were deleted, Moudgil filed a fresh complaint in December 2024.
She alleged that Sindhuri had made derogatory remarks about her, including statements suggesting that she was mentally unwell.
The Magistrate considered the complaint, examined Sindhuri’s response and subsequently took cognizance of the matter.
Sindhuri challenged the proceedings before the Karnataka High Court, but her petition was dismissed, prompting her to approach the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP).
Proceedings Stayed Pending Mediation
With both officers agreeing to explore a resolution, the Supreme Court has now stayed all proceedings between the parties and referred the matter to mediation before Justice Kurian Joseph.
The outcome of the mediation process could determine whether one of Karnataka’s most high-profile bureaucratic disputes is settled outside the courtroom.
