Rohini Sindhuri tells SC she doesn't want to settle case

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru

On Thursday, the Supreme Court permitted Indian Police Service (IPS) officer D Roopa Moudgil to withdraw her plea seeking the quashing of the criminal defamation case filed against her by Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Rohini Sindhuri. A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih allowed the withdrawal after being informed that the parties had failed to reach an agreement to settle the matter and would be proceeding to trial.

During earlier hearings, the Court had granted time for the parties to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. When the matter was taken up on Thursday, the Court inquired about their intention to resolve the dispute outside of litigation, emphasising that prolonged legal proceedings could damage their careers. "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' offices than in their work. The proceedings of this case would affect careers of these officers," Justice Oka orally remarked, as per a report by Bar and Bench. Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, representing Moudgil, requested the Court to appoint a mediator to facilitate a settlement. However, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for Sindhuri, rejected the suggestion, asserting that the damage to his client's reputation was immense. The dispute began in February when Moudgil accused Sindhuri on Facebook of sharing private pictures with IAS officers, causing a public fallout.

The Karnataka government transferred both officers. Sindhuri then sent a legal notice demanding an apology and ?1 crore in damages. A Bengaluru court initiated a defamation case,. During Thursday's hearing, the Court questioned Moudgil's motives for making public allegations against Sindhuri. "How is your client (Moudgil) even concerned with making such posts in the public domain? Were you some investigating officer in any of the allegations you made in the posts? If you are not related to anything you alleged in posts, then is it not defamatory?" the Court asked. Sondhi argued that Moudgil was acting as a whistleblower against alleged misconduct by Sindhuri. However, Justice Amanullah countered, saying: "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 the criminal justice system, still you did this?” as per the Bar and Bench report. The Bench urged the parties to settle amicably, despite deciding the matter on merits.