The Supreme Court urged IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri and IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil to resolve their long-running dispute through mediation, observing that continued litigation was harming both careers. The Court made the remarks while hearing Sindhuri’s challenge to criminal defamation proceedings.
The Supreme Court once again urged senior civil servants IAS Rohini Sindhuri and IPS D Roopa Moudgil to explore an amicable resolution of their long-standing legal battle through mediation, observing that the continued litigation was adversely affecting both officers and serving little constructive purpose.
A Bench comprising Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was hearing a petition filed by IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri challenging a Karnataka High Court order that upheld a trial court’s decision to take cognisance of a criminal defamation complaint instituted by IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil.
During the hearing, the Court expressed concern over the prolonged public dispute between the two senior officers, noting that both had distinguished careers in public service and that the ongoing legal confrontation was causing unnecessary damage to their professional reputations.
Observing that the matter appeared capable of resolution outside the courtroom, the Bench remarked:
“Both are excellent officers. They are ruining each other’s career…This court is of the opinion that the matter can be resolved by way of mediation.”
In view of the nature of the dispute and the stature of the parties involved, the Supreme Court appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph as mediator to facilitate discussions and explore the possibility of a mutually acceptable settlement.
The Court expressed hope that an independent mediation process could help bring closure to a controversy that has continued for more than three years and generated significant public attention.
Origins of the Dispute
The conflict between the two officers traces its roots to February 2023, when a series of social media posts allegedly published by D Roopa Moudgil triggered a highly publicised controversy within Karnataka’s administrative circles.
According to Sindhuri, she came across Facebook posts in which Moudgil allegedly accused her of sharing personal photographs with fellow IAS officers. The allegations quickly gained widespread attention and sparked a public exchange between the two senior bureaucrats.
The controversy soon moved beyond social media and became a matter of public debate, drawing scrutiny from both the government and the media. Given the positions held by the two officers, the dispute attracted significant attention and raised concerns about professionalism within the civil services.
As the controversy intensified, the Karnataka government transferred both officers from their existing assignments in an effort to contain the fallout and restore administrative normalcy.
Following the allegations, Sindhuri issued a legal notice to Moudgil demanding an unconditional apology. She also sought damages of Rs 1 crore, claiming that the allegations had caused serious injury to her reputation and resulted in considerable mental distress.
Subsequently, Sindhuri initiated criminal defamation proceedings against Moudgil. In March 2023, a Bengaluru court took cognisance of the complaint and decided to proceed with the case.
Moudgil challenged the proceedings before the Karnataka High Court, seeking quashing of the complaint. However, the High Court declined to interfere, holding that the allegations and materials on record required a full-fledged trial and could not be dismissed at the preliminary stage. Aggrieved by the decision, Moudgil approached the Supreme Court in December 2023.
The matter initially came before a Bench headed by Justice Abhay S. Oka. During those proceedings, the Supreme Court repeatedly expressed concern about the public nature of the conflict and its potential impact on governance and public administration.
The Court observed that disputes between senior civil servants, particularly when fought through social media and public platforms, could undermine public confidence in the administrative machinery and distract officers from their official responsibilities.
In December 2023, the Supreme Court stayed the criminal defamation proceedings and directed both officers to refrain from engaging with the media regarding the dispute. The Court also encouraged efforts towards reconciliation and suggested that Moudgil consider removing the contentious social media posts and issuing an apology if necessary to facilitate settlement.
Despite repeated encouragement from the Court and several rounds of discussions, efforts to resolve the dispute through mediation did not yield any breakthrough.
According to proceedings before the Court, Sindhuri consistently maintained that the allegations had caused substantial and lasting harm to her personal and professional reputation. She reportedly expressed reservations about settling the matter without adequate redress. As a result, mediation attempts failed to produce a mutually acceptable outcome.
In November 2024, the Supreme Court permitted Moudgil to withdraw her petition seeking quashing of the criminal defamation proceedings after being informed that settlement efforts had been unsuccessful and that the dispute would have to be resolved through the trial process.
Direction of Supreme Cout
Even though the litigation has continued since then, the Supreme Court on Friday signalled that it remains of the view that a negotiated settlement would be preferable to prolonged legal proceedings.
By appointing Justice Kurian Joseph as mediator, the Court has made a renewed attempt to bring the parties together and avoid further escalation of a dispute that has already consumed considerable judicial time and attracted widespread public attention.
The Court’s observations also reflect a broader concern about maintaining decorum and professionalism within the civil services, particularly where disagreements between senior officers spill into the public domain and result in prolonged litigation.
The matter is expected to proceed before the mediator, who will attempt to facilitate discussions between the parties and submit a report to the Court regarding the possibility of settlement.
Case Title: Rohini Sindhuri v. Roopa Divakar Moudgil
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE