The Supreme Court on Friday (June 12, 2026) stepped into the long-running dispute between Karnataka IPS officer D. Roopa Moudgil and IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri, and asked them to try and settle it through mediation. Saying their continuing fight was destroying their careers, a Bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Sanjeev Sachdeva appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph as mediator and directed both officers to appear before him.

The court was dealing with a battle that has played out in public for more than three years and has led to defamation cases, counter-cases and claims for damages of ₹1 crore. The Bench also stayed further proceedings before lower courts, making it clear that, in its view, the matter would be better resolved through mediation than by letting the litigation continue.

"Both of them are destroying each other’s careers. In the present case, this court is of the opinion that the matter can be resolved by way of mediation. Justice Kurian Joseph, a retired Supreme Court judge, is appointed as the mediator. The parties shall appear before Justice Kurian Joseph," the Bench said. During the hearing, Justice Sharma also remarked orally that both officers were destroying each other’s careers.

The latest round of litigation reached the Supreme Court after the Karnataka High Court, in February, dismissed a petition filed by Ms. Sindhuri challenging criminal defamation proceedings initiated on a complaint lodged by Ms. Moudgil. The High Court upheld the trial court’s order taking cognisance of Ms. Moudgil’s complaint, observing that it was meticulous and exhaustive and did not warrant interference. It also said that the question of whether the statements were made in good faith or for public good was a matter of evidence to be decided at trial.

The dispute first came into the public domain in 2023, when Ms. Moudgil levelled a series of allegations against Ms. Sindhuri. The controversy was traced to February 18, 2023, when Ms. Moudgil allegedly made a series of Facebook posts against Ms. Sindhuri, including claims relating to the construction of a large bungalow in Jalahalli that was allegedly not disclosed in her immovable property returns.

Ms. Sindhuri denied the allegations and accused the IPS officer of carrying out a false and personal vilification campaign. According to Ms. Sindhuri, Ms. Moudgil shared photographs, made allegations on social media and issued statements to the media questioning her personal and professional conduct with the intent of damaging her reputation among colleagues and the public. She then moved court, filing a civil defamation suit seeking a perpetual injunction, lodging a private criminal complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, and seeking damages of ₹1 crore. She had also sought an unconditional written apology and damages of ₹1 crore for the alleged loss of reputation and mental agony caused by the statements.

The legal fight did not stop there. Earlier, the top court had granted time to both sides to explore an amicable settlement and had also directed Ms. Moudgil to remove social media posts concerning Ms. Sindhuri. In an affidavit filed before the court, Ms. Moudgil said, "I have taken down the posts/statements with respect to the respondent from my Facebook/social media account profile." The affidavit added, "Though the respondent had objected to only some specific posts of mine in her complaint, in due deference to the observations of this Hon’ble Court, I have taken down all the posts with respect to the respondent."

However, no settlement was reached. In December 2024, Ms. Moudgil filed a fresh criminal complaint alleging that Ms. Sindhuri had made derogatory remarks against her, including calling her mentally unsound. A magistrate took cognisance after considering her reply, after which Ms. Sindhuri moved the High Court and then the Supreme Court.

With both officers continuing to pursue proceedings against each other, the Supreme Court has now referred the matter to mediation through Justice Kurian Joseph, while staying further proceedings before lower courts, in an effort to end a dispute that has led to years of public allegations, social media exchanges and defamation claims.

FAQs

• +

  Why did the Supreme Court refer the D. Roopa Moudgil and Rohini Sindhuri dispute to mediation?

  The Supreme Court said the continuing fight was damaging both officers’ careers and felt the matter could be better resolved through mediation instead of prolonged litigation.

• +

  Who has been appointed as mediator in the Karnataka officers’ defamation dispute?

  The Supreme Court appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph as the mediator and directed both officers to appear before him.

• +

  What action has the Supreme Court taken on the ongoing lower court cases?

  The court stayed further proceedings before the lower courts while the mediation process goes on, aiming to reduce further escalation of the dispute.

• +

  How did the dispute between D. Roopa Moudgil and Rohini Sindhuri begin?

  The dispute came into the public domain in 2023 after D. Roopa Moudgil allegedly made a series of Facebook posts and public allegations against Rohini Sindhuri, including claims linked to property disclosure.

• +

  What are the main legal claims made by both sides in this case?

  The matter involves defamation complaints, counter-allegations, social media-related claims and a demand for damages of ₹1 crore, along with requests for apology, injunction and criminal action.

Published on: Jun 14, 2026 8:30 PM IST