
Rohini Sindhuri (Left) and D Roopa (Right)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.
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.