Supreme Court Appoints Justice Kurian Joseph As Mediator In Rohini Sindhuri IAS-Roopa Moudgil IPS Defamation Dispute

The Supreme Court on Friday referred the long-running defamation dispute between IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri and IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil, both serving in Karnataka, to mediation, remarking that both officers were harming each other's careers through continued litigation.

A bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva expressed the view that the dispute could be resolved through mediation instead of prolonged court proceedings. Accordingly, the Court appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph as mediator to facilitate a settlement between the two officers.

“Both of them are destroying each other's careers”, Justice Sharma remarked.

“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 Kurien Joseph. By way of interim relief, further proceedings in respect of both the cases between the parties shall remain stayed”, the Court ordered.

The case arose from public allegations made by the two officers against each other in 2023, following which both initiated defamation proceedings against each other.

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Sindhuri challenging criminal defamation proceedings initiated against her on a complaint lodged by Moudgil.

The High Court upheld a trial court order taking cognizance of Moudgil's complaint, holding that the order reflected due application of mind and did not warrant interference under the High Court's jurisdiction.

While rejecting Sindhuri's plea that the statements attributed to her were protected by the defence of good faith, the High Court noted that an identical contention had earlier been raised by Moudgil in proceedings initiated by Sindhuri. A coordinate bench had then held that the question of good faith was a matter of evidence to be decided during trial.

The High Court observed that the same principle had to apply equally to both parties. Referring to the earlier ruling, the Court said that what was considered a triable issue for one party could not become a ground for quashing proceedings at the threshold for the other.

The High Court further held that whether a statement was made for public good was a question of fact to be determined on evidence. Such issues, it held, could not be examined at the preliminary stage of the proceedings.

The High Court also rejected Sindhuri's argument that the Magistrate had mechanically taken cognizance. It found that the trial court had extensively considered the complaint, sworn statements, objections and documentary material before issuing process, and the order reflected a detailed examination of the material.

Background

The controversy began after Moudgil allegedly made a series of Facebook posts on February 18, 2023 containing remarks concerning Sindhuri. Among other allegations, the posts claimed that Sindhuri had constructed a large bungalow in Jalahalli but had not disclosed it in the immovable property returns required to be periodically filed by All India Service officers.

Sindhuri thereafter instituted a civil defamation suit seeking a perpetual injunction against Moudgil from making allegedly false and defamatory statements. The civil court granted an ad interim order. She also filed a private criminal complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, leading to cognizance being taken by a trial court.

Moudgil challenged those proceedings before the High Court, but her petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court later encouraged the parties to explore a settlement and directed Moudgil to remove the allegedly defamatory social media posts. The posts were subsequently deleted and the proceedings before the Supreme Court were withdrawn.

After the withdrawal of those proceedings, Moudgil filed a fresh complaint on December 9, 2024 alleging that Sindhuri had also made derogatory remarks against her, including describing her as mentally unsound or ill. The Magistrate issued notice to Sindhuri, considered her reply and thereafter took cognizance and issued process.

Sindhuri challenged those proceedings before the Karnataka High Court. The High Court had, on earlier occasions, granted time to the parties to explore settlement, but no resolution could be reached. It ultimately dismissed her petition. Thus she filed the present SLP before the Supreme Court.

Case no. – Diary No. 34613 / 2026

Case Title – Rohini Sindhuri v. Roopa Divakar Moudgil