The Supreme Court has appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph as mediator in the long-standing defamation dispute between Karnataka-cadre IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri and IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil to mediation, observing that the continuing litigation was causing damage to the professional careers of both officers.
The Bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held on Friday that the dispute could be resolved through an amicable settlement rather than prolonged adversarial litigation involving multiple rounds of civil and criminal proceedings.
While passing the order, the Bench noted that both officers were accomplished public servants and observed that the ongoing legal battle was adversely affecting their careers. The Court held that the matter was suitable for mediation and directed both parties to appear before Justice Kurian Joseph. As an interim measure, it stayed all further proceedings arising out of the cases between the parties pending the mediation process.
The proceedings arose from a Special Leave Petition filed by Sindhuri challenging a Karnataka High Court judgment that refused to quash criminal defamation proceedings initiated against her on a complaint filed by Moudgil.
The High Court had upheld a trial court order taking cognisance of Moudgil’s complaint and issuing process against Sindhuri. The High Court found that the Magistrate had applied his mind to the complaint, sworn statements, objections and documentary material before taking cognisance and that the order did not warrant interference under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
Rejecting Sindhuri’s contention that her statements were protected under the defence of good faith, the High Court observed that a similar argument had earlier been raised by Moudgil in separate proceedings initiated by Sindhuri. A coordinate bench had then held that the question of good faith was a matter requiring evidentiary examination during trial. Applying the same principle, the High Court held that the issue could not be adjudicated at the threshold stage in Sindhuri’s case either.
The High Court further observed that whether a statement was made for public good constituted a mixed question of fact and law that could only be determined after evidence was led during trial. Such issues, it held, were not suitable for consideration in proceedings seeking quashing of criminal complaints.
The dispute traces its origins to February 2023, when Moudgil allegedly made a series of Facebook posts containing allegations against Sindhuri. Among other assertions, Moudgil claimed that Sindhuri had constructed a bungalow in Bengaluru’s Jalahalli area without properly disclosing it in the immovable property returns that All India Service officers are required to file periodically. Moudgil also allegedly accused Sindhuri of sharing private photographs with fellow IAS officers.
The allegations triggered a highly publicised public confrontation between the two senior officers and eventually led to the Karnataka Government transferring both of them from their respective positions.
Following the social media posts, Sindhuri issued a legal notice to Moudgil demanding an unconditional apology and compensation of Rs one crore for alleged loss of reputation and mental agony. She subsequently instituted a civil defamation suit seeking a perpetual injunction restraining Moudgil from making allegedly defamatory statements. The civil court granted ad interim relief in her favour.
Sindhuri also filed a private criminal complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. A Bengaluru court took cognisance of the complaint in March 2023 and initiated criminal defamation proceedings against Moudgil.
Moudgil challenged those proceedings before the Karnataka High Court, but her plea was dismissed. The High Court held that the allegations contained in the complaint disclosed a prima facie case warranting a full-fledged trial.
Thereafter, Moudgil approached the Supreme Court in December 2023 seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. During the hearings, a Bench led by Justice Abhay S. Oka repeatedly expressed concern over the public nature of the dispute and observed that such conduct by senior civil servants could adversely affect governance and administrative functioning.
The Supreme Court had stayed the criminal defamation proceedings and directed both officers not to make public statements or engage with the media regarding the dispute. The Court had also encouraged settlement efforts, suggesting that Moudgil remove the allegedly defamatory social media posts and consider issuing an apology to bring closure to the controversy.
Pursuant to those proceedings, the allegedly defamatory posts were deleted. However, despite repeated attempts at settlement, mediation efforts failed. Sindhuri maintained that the allegations had caused substantial and irreparable damage to her reputation and was unwilling to settle the matter on the proposed terms.
In November 2024, the Supreme Court permitted Moudgil to withdraw her petition challenging the criminal defamation proceedings after being informed that no settlement had been reached and that the matter would proceed before the trial court.
Following the withdrawal of those proceedings, Moudgil instituted a fresh criminal complaint on December 9, 2024, alleging that Sindhuri had also made defamatory remarks against her, including statements portraying her as mentally unsound. After considering the complaint, Sindhuri’s response and the material placed on record, the Magistrate took cognisance and issued process against Sindhuri.
Sindhuri challenged those proceedings before the Karnataka High Court. Although the High Court granted opportunities to both parties to explore an amicable settlement, no resolution could be achieved. The Court ultimately dismissed her petition, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Taking note of the prolonged nature of the dispute and the positions held by the parties, the Supreme Court has now revived the possibility of an out-of-court resolution by referring the matter to mediation. Pending the mediation process before Justice Kurian Joseph, all proceedings between the two officers will remain stayed.
The post Supreme Court appoints Justice Kurian Joseph as mediator in defamation dispute between IAS Rohini Sindhuri and IPS D Roopa Moudgil appeared first on India Legal.