Advocate Cannot Disclose Client's Confidential Information Even If She Turns Adversary : Supreme Court Upholds Lawyers' Suspension

The Supreme Court on Friday (August 21) affirmed the two-year suspension of an advocate's license to practice, holding that the disclosure of a former client's confidential information could not be justified on the ground of responding to public allegations.

“An advocate's duty is not conditional upon the client's continued good behaviour towards the advocate. An advocate cannot use information received in confidence against his client, and the fact that she has since become his adversary makes no difference.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, while sustaining the Bar Council of India disciplinary committee order to suspend the bar license of the Respondent-advocate for two years.

The case arose from a complaint filed by the Appellant (actress Rehana Khana @ Rozlyn Khan) against her former advocate, i.e., Respondent(Rizwan Siddique), before the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The appellant had engaged the respondent as her counsel in 2013-2014 in connection with allegations of sexual assault against a senior police official.

The crux of the complaint was that on August 5, 2014, the respondent gave television interviews in which he disclosed confidential communications with the appellant, played recorded conversations between them, broadcast messaging exchanges, and publicly characterized her complaint as a "false case of rape" while accusing her of seeking publicity.

The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, by order dated August 11, 2025, found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct and suspended his license for two years, imposed a fine of ₹3 lakh payable to the complainant, and directed ₹2 lakh to be deposited in the Bar Council of India's Welfare Fund.

Both the Appellant and Respondent filed appeals against the BCI's decision. The Appellant sought enhancement in the punishment, whereas the Respondent sought setting aside of the punishment.

Sustaining the BCI's bar license suspension order, the judgment authored by Justice Nath disapproved the Respondent's act of revealing the confidential information of her former client. The Court said that merely because of the termination of the client-attorney relationship between them, the Respondent cannot reveal the sensitive and confidential information of her former client to respond to the accusations made against him.

The respondent had challenged the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that the order was passed ex parte without proper service of notice. The Court rejected this contention, noting:

"The respondent entered appearance and he filed a written statement refuting the allegations. He was represented by counsel, and he participated in the recording of evidence. It is clear that he knew, from the institution of the disciplinary case, down to the passing of the impugned order in August 2025, that proceedings were pending against him and what those proceedings alleged. A party who has been present throughout cannot be heard to say that he was absent, especially one who is himself an advocate. The ground is flimsy and is, in our view, an afterthought, taken because no better one was available."

The Court further rejected the appellant's prayer for enhancement of punishment, observing that she had not approached the Court with clean hands, having herself participated in a press briefing while the matter was pending.

"The material on record, including exchanges she has herself relied upon, shows that while the engagement subsisted she and the respondent were in discussion about the means by which the police official might be trapped, which is not the conduct of a client simply seeking legal advice. Nor is her account of what followed complete. She appeared before the electronic media on 28th July 2014 of her own volition and spoke of her case, though her grievance before us is that her case was made public. Further, the police official was discharged on 4th December 2015, and that order has never been challenged by her. Having been less than candid about each of these matters, she cannot ask us to enlarge a relief granted to her.", the Court observed.

The Court also dissaproved of the conduct of both the parties for suppressing material information.

Resultantly, the appeals were disposed of, imposing costs of ₹5 lakh each on the appellant and the respondent, to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.

Also from the judgment - Supreme Court Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Costs On Actress & Her Advocate For Wasting Judicial Time

Headnote

Advocates Act, 1961 — Section 35 — Professional Misconduct — Fiduciary Duty and Privileged Communications — Advocate going to the media against a former client — Scope of professional duty - An advocate cannot use information received in confidence against a client, and the circumstance that the client has subsequently turned into an adversary makes no difference. An advocate's professional duty is not conditional upon the client's continued good behavior towards the advocate. Even where an advocate is named in a First Information Report (FIR) by the client or subjected to media pursuit, the remedies lie in presenting their version before the investigating agency or initiating proceedings for defamation. An advocate is strictly prohibited from taking grievances to television channels, disclosing privileged communications, broadcasting recorded conversations with a former client, or publicly disparaging the client's case. [Paras 17-20].

Advocates Act, 1961 — Section 35 — Principles of Natural Justice — Ex-Parte Allegation - Where an advocate entered appearance, filed a written statement, was represented by counsel, participated in the recording of evidence, and was aware of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings throughout its pendency, a subsequent plea alleging denial of a reasonable opportunity of hearing on the ground of non service of notice of the final hearing at an updated address cannot be sustained. A party present throughout cannot be heard to allege absence, particularly when the litigant is himself an advocate. [Para 14].

Appellate Jurisdiction / Disciplinary Proceedings — Enhancement of Punishment — Clean Hands Doctrine - A complainant seeking enhancement of punishment awarded to an advocate must approach the court with clean hands. Where the complainant suppressed material facts, engaged in dubious conduct during the subsistence of the professional relationship (such as strategizing to trap the opposing party rather than seeking pure legal advice), voluntarily appeared before the electronic media to ventilate the dispute, and allowed the discharge order of the main accused to achieve finality, no relief for enhancement of punishment can be entertained. [Para 15-20]

Abuse of Process of Court — Imposition of Exemplary Costs- The machinery of justice cannot be deployed as a facility to settle personal scores or salvage reputations imperiled by the parties' own actions. Where both litigants engaged in suppression, embellishment, and afterthought, and consumed institutional time of disciplinary bodies and constitutional courts for eleven years, costs of ₹5,00,000/- each imposed on both the complainant and the advocate to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. [Paras 21 - 23].

Cause Title: REHANA KHAN VS. RIZWAN SIDDHIQUEE (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 846

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Rehana Khan Petitioner/appellant-in-person Mr. Adit Subramaniam Pujari, Adv. Ms. Karishma Maria, AOR Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, Adv. Mr. Harshwardhan Pushkin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bhavesh Seth, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Caveator-in-person, AOR Mr. P V Yogeswaran, Adv. * M/S. Ram Sankar & Co, AOR Mr. Adit Subramaniam Pujari, Adv. Ms. Karishma Maria, AOR Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, Adv. Mr. Harshwardhan Pushkin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bhavesh Seth, Adv.