Advocate's Duty To Maintain Client Confidentiality Doesn't End With Service, Remains Perpetual: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an advocate's obligation to maintain confidentiality regarding client communications and professional advice does not cease upon termination of employment and remains perpetual. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 424]

Remarking that the petitioner's conduct in raising the matter relating to his former employer was "highly objectionable and reprehensible", the division bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia observed:

"An advocate owes an uncompromising duty of loyalty and confidentiality. An advocate is statutorily barred from disclosing communications made to them in the course and for the purpose of their employment by or on behalf of their client, as well as the advice given thereon, unless there is express consent. This obligation does not cease upon termination of employment—it remains perpetual. The petitioner, being an ex-employee, is not supposed to highlight the matters relating to his employer after leaving the service. His conduct is highly objectionable and reprehensible". 

The petitioner had previously served as Legal Head of Sasan Power (respondent no 5) and was in charge of land acquisition matters concerning the power plant area. After leaving the company, he approached the High Court alleging irregularities in the preparation and verification of the list of beneficiaries under the R&R Policy. 

Per the petitioner, an earlier list of beneficiaries had been signed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Singrauli. He alleged that a subsequent list contained several irregularities, including list of ineligible persons and the showing of certain individuals who had been minors in the original list as adults to enable them to receive monetary benefits. 

He further contended that a number of beneficiaries had increased by approximately 300 in the subsequent list, allegedly resulting in the grant of unlawful monetary benefits to ineligible persons and causing financial loss to the public exchequer. 

The petitioner stated that he had submitted a complaint to the Collector, which was forwarded to the SDO for appropriate action, but despite the lapse of several months, no effective steps were taken. Accordingly, he approached the High Court seeking directions for the production of records relating to the beneficiaries and the amounts disbursed under the policy, along with an inquiry into alleged irregularities. 

The petition was initially placed before a Single Judge, who observed that it ought to be registered as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), given the petitioner's assertion that he had no personal interest in the matter. 

The court noted that the petitioner was seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Collector and Sub Divisional Officer to submit the entire record, including the list of beneficiaries of the R&R Policy and the amount to be disbursed to them as per the SDO's order. 

The court rejected the contention that the petitioner had no personal interest in the matter. Even otherwise, the court held that the petitioner cannot be permitted to bring his cause by way of public interest litigation as he was the legal head in the office of the Company. 

Emphasizing the advocate's obligation of loyalty and confidentiality, the bench dismissed the petition and imposed costs of ₹20,000, noting it to be devoid of substance. 

For Petitioner: Advocate Abhay Dubey

For State: Deputy Advocate General Vivek Sharma