SC allows CDR access in K’taka bureaucrats legal tussle

THe long-running sound combat betwixt IPS ship's ship's officer D Roopa Moudgil and IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in Karnataka seems to have taken a dramatic turn last month, with Moudgil telling the Supreme Court that Sinduri had a relationship with her (the former’s) husband, a senior IAS officer, and that this affair formed the factual basis of the social media posts that led to criminal defamation proceedings against her, which are currently ongoing in a Karnataka court.Moudgil made the allegation before the Supreme Court last month while seeking an order to access Call Detail Records (CDRs) relating to two mobile phone numbers that she said would support her defence in the criminal defamation case filed against her by IAS officer Sindhuri. A bench of justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan allowed Moudgil’s plea and directed the production of the records. While the Court did not express any view on the truth of the allegations, it recorded Moudgil’s claim that Sindhuri had a relationship with her husband and held that evidence relating to that allegation could not be treated as irrelevant to her defence.The court’s order, passed on May 21, was made recently public.Moudgil told the Court that the alleged relationship “shattered her matrimonial life” despite the couple having two children. She told the court that the Facebook posts that she made, which later became the subject of the defamation case against her, arose from those events affecting her marriage.According to Moudgil’s plea, communications between Sindhuri and her husband took place through a mobile number that was not registered in either of their names. She alleged that Sindhuri had obtained a SIM card in the “name of an associate” and given it to Moudgil’s husband so that they could communicate without attracting attention.Moudgil’s counsel, senior advocate DS Naidu told the apex court that the CDRs would help establish the factual basis of the statements she had made.“Learned senior counsel for the appellant (Moudgil) submits that the appellant is herself a senior IPS Officer and wife of a senior IAS Office. And the respondent (Sindhuri) had a relationship with her husband due to which, her matrimonial life is shattered despite the couple having two children,” the Supreme Court recorded in its order passed on May 21 this year.Senior advocate Niranjan Reddy, who appeared for Sindhuri, denied the allegations and argued that they had no bearing on the criminal defamation case while maintaining that the claims of an affair between Moudgil’s husband and Sindhuri were “totally fictitious”.Reddy said that the trial court only needed to determine whether Moudgil had published defamatory material and not whether her allegations against Sindhuri were true.The Supreme Court, however, accepted Moudgil’s contention that the records could have relevance to her defence.The bench noted that the Facebook posts were allegedly a “direct consequence” of events involving Sindhuri and Moudgil’s husband and that communications between them could therefore become relevant in the trial.“Thus, in order to prove innocence by an accused in a case of defamation, especially when it relates to posts on social media, the defence for the posts being made, if it is based on certain factual aspects which can be proved through documents or material, which in the present case are the CDRs, cannot be said to be extraneous material and unwarranted,” the Court said while allowing Moudgil’s plea.The Supreme Court set aside previous orders of both the trial court and the Karnataka High Court, which had refused Moudgil’s request for the records.It directed authorities to produce the CDRs before the trial court in a “sealed cover” and ordered that any discussion of the records take place “in-camera and not in open court.”The dispute between the two officers arose in February 2023, when Sindhuri accused Moudgil of publishing a series of defamatory Facebook posts and making public statements against her. Sindhuri pursued both civil and criminal remedies, while Moudgil later filed a separate criminal complaint alleging that Sindhuri had also made defamatory remarks against her. The dispute has witnessed multiple rounds of litigation before courts in Karnataka and the Supreme CourtOn June 12 this year, another bench of the Supreme Court directed Moudgil and Sindhuri to explore an amicable resolution through mediation, observing that their prolonged public and legal battle was “destroying” their careers. The bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Sanjeev Sachdeva had appointed retired Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph as mediator to facilitate a settlement.Moudgil is currently posted as Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) and Managing Director of the Karnataka Silk Marketing Board and Sindhuri is special secretary with the Karnataka Commerce and Industries Department.