In a notable development, the Supreme Court of India has intervened in a contentious defamation case involving two high-ranking civil servants from Karnataka, IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri and IPS officer D. Roopa Moudgil. This legal dispute, which has captured public attention, underscores the complexities of interpersonal conflicts among senior government officials and the judiciary’s role in resolving such matters.
The case traces its origins to a series of allegations made by Moudgil against Sindhuri on Facebook. Moudgil accused Sindhuri of inappropriate conduct, including the sharing of private pictures with fellow IAS officers. This accusation sparked a public spat, leading to the transfer of both officers by the state government. In response to these allegations, Sindhuri issued a legal notice to Moudgil on February 21, demanding an unconditional apology and ₹1 crore in damages for the loss of reputation and mental agony she suffered.
The legal proceedings escalated when a Bengaluru court, on March 24, initiated a criminal defamation case against Roopa, following a private suit filed by Sindhuri. Moudgil’s attempt to quash the case was rejected by the Karnataka High Court in August, leading her to approach the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s involvement brought a new dimension to the case. On December 13, the Court, acknowledging the high ranks of the involved parties, recommended mediation to preserve the image of the administration. Justice Oka, addressing the situation, advised the officers to avoid ‘mud-slinging.’ He remarked,
“Public spats between such officials would demean the administration and its image.”
The following day, the Court suggested that Moudgil could settle the issue by removing all social media posts against Sindhuri and issuing an apology.
Also read-Mukhtar Ansari Receives Jail Sentence; UP Assures Supreme Court Of His Safety (lawchakra.in)
On December 15, the Supreme Court stayed the criminal defamation proceedings after Moudgil filed an affidavit confirming the deletion of the controversial social media posts. The Court also imposed a gag order on both Sindhuri and Moudgil, barring them from making public statements about the case. The Court stated,
“Considering the fact that we are making an attempt to resolve all the disputes pending between the parties, none of them shall give any interview or any information to the media, social and print, in any form.” The next hearing was scheduled for January 12, 2024.
In her defamation complaint, Sindhuri had alleged that Moudgil’s actions, including sharing photos and making allegations on social media, constituted a character assassination. The High Court had previously observed,
“If the statements posted on a private account as well as the statements made before the print media are examined, I am more than satisfied that the petitioner/accused is bound to face a criminal trial.”
This case is significant as it highlights the delicate balance between personal grievances and professional conduct among high-ranking officials. The Supreme Court’s intervention not only emphasizes the need for maintaining decorum among civil servants but also demonstrates the judiciary’s crucial role in mediating conflicts that have wider implications for public administration and governance in India. The outcome of this case will be keenly observed, as it will set a precedent for handling disputes among senior government officials in the future.
