Rohini Sindhuri IAS tells Supreme Court she doesn't want to settle case against Roopa Moudgil IPS

The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed Indian Police Service (IPS) officer D Roopa Moudgil to withdraw her plea seeking quashing of the criminal defamation case initiated against her by Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Rohini Sindhuri [D Roopa v. Rohini Sindhuri].

A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih allowed the withdrawal after it was informed that the parties are unable to reach an agreement to settle the matter and would be proceeding for trial in the case.

During the hearings, the Court had allowed the parties time to decide whether they can settle the matter amicably.

When the matter was taken up today, the Court asked the parties about their intention to settle the dispute amicably instead of going through litigation, which can harm their careers as bureaucrats.

"Notice was issued because one IPS and IAS officer are fighting and we thought that you both should resolve it for settlement. We heard for mediation because senior bureaucrats are spending more time in lawyers office than in their work. The proceedings of this case would affect careers of these officers," Justice Oka orally remarked.

Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for Modugil, requested the Court to appoint a mediator to settle the dispute between the two.

However, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for Sindhuri, rejected the suggestion, arguing that immense damage was caused to the reputation of his client.

"Please see my statement of objections, look at the statement they made. There is a lot more. They have destroyed a family. You put everything in the public domain and it is still available everywhere and then you come out with a talk of settlement..." Luthra submitted.

Sindhuri, who was physically present, informed the Court that she was not interested in mediation and wanted the matter to be decided on merits.

On February 18 last year, Sindhuri discovered that Moudgil had made several allegations against her in Facebook posts. In these posts, Moudgil allegedly accused Sindhuri of sharing her private pictures with fellow IAS officers.

This led to a public spat between the two, prompting the Karnataka government to transfer both officers.

Sindhuri then issued a legal notice to Moudgil and demanded an unconditional apology and ₹1 crore in damages for the loss of her reputation and mental agony.

On March 24, a Bengaluru court ordered initiation of a criminal defamation case against Moudgil, who then moved the Karnataka High Court to quash the same. On August 21, the High Court rejected her plea, prompting the present appeal.

During today's hearing, the Court questioned the intent of IPS Modugi behind allegations made in her social media posts against IAS Sindhuri.

"How is your client (Moudgil) even concerned with making such posts in public domain? Were you some investigating officer in any of such allegations you made in the posts made in public domain against the respondent. If you are not related with anything you alleged in posts, then is it not defamatory?" the Court asked.

Sondhi argued that Moudgil was acting as a whistleblower against the wrongful acts of IAS Sindhuri. However, Justice Amanullah replied,

"Suppose your client (Moudgil) had such a grievance with the respondent-Sindhuri, you can move a grievance within the department, if you were so-called public-spirited person. You decided to go one on one against her. Isn't this defamatory? You know every aspect of criminal justice system, still you did this?"

Even as the Bench said it would decide the matter on merits, the Court urged the parties to make another attempt to settle the matter.

"We have to decide this on merits...if we have to decide this and we decide against you, what good it will do to your client? Both are here in court, please take instructions as to what should be done," Justice Oka orally said.

"Can they talk to each other face to face without court's direction?" Justice Amanullah weighed in.

However, despite grant of time, Sondhi told the Court that he would withdraw the plea, as no settlement could be reached between the parties.

Taking note of this, the Court proceeded to allow Moudgil to withdraw her plea.

On December 13 last year, the Supreme Court had recommended mediation in the matter in view of the high ranks of the parties involved.

A day later, on December 14, the top court had urged the IPS officer to give an undertaking that she would remove all social media posts against Sindhuri and apologise so that the issue could be settled.

On December 15, it ordered an interim stay in the matter and directed the officers to not speak to the media. It had again suggested mediation to resolve the dispute.