Supreme Court Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Costs On Actress & Her Advocate For Wasting Judicial Time
The Court noted that neither of them had approached it with clean hands.
The Supreme Court today (August 21) strongly disapproved of the conduct of Mumbai-based Advocate Rizwan Siddiquee and actress Rehana Khan, alias Rozlyn Khan, for wasting more than 11 years of the judiciary just for the sake of their reputation.
In view of the conduct of both sides, the Court also imposed costs. The appellant and the respondent were each directed to pay ₹5 lakh to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks, with the Court directing that the amount would be recovered in accordance with law in the event of non-payment.
To briefly state, the issue arose after Khan accused Siddiquee of professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, alleging that he breached the fiduciary relationship by disclosing confidential client information to the media, issuing a public notice without consent, and making derogatory remarks about his client public. Khan made a complaint to the Bar Council of India, which initiated a disciplinary proceeding against the advocate.
The committee found Siddiquee guilty of professional misconduct and suspended his license for 2 years, and he was ordered to pay Rs. 3 lakhs to the complainant and Rs. 2 lakh to the BCI. Both challenged the BCI's order before the High Court and then before the Supreme Court.
Neither party approached the Court with clean hands'
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that both parties suppressed materials and didn't approach the Court with clean hands.
The Supreme Court took a critical view of the manner in which both sides had conducted the litigation. The Bench noted that the parties had withheld relevant material and that the record disclosed instances of suppression, embellishment and claims developed after the fact.
The Court emphasised that judicial proceedings cannot be used as a means for parties to settle personal scores, repair reputations damaged by their own conduct, or obtain an advantage from disputes in which they themselves had played a substantial role.
'Eleven years' of judicial time consumed
The Bench expressed particular concern over the length of the litigation. It noted that the dispute had occupied the attention of the Bar Council of India, the High Court and the Supreme Court for approximately 11 years.
The Court stressed that judicial time is a limited public resource and that the time consumed by this dispute could otherwise have been devoted to litigants whose cases required genuine and timely judicial intervention.
The Bench consequently recorded its strong disapproval of the conduct of both parties, holding that each had contributed substantially to the controversy and its prolonged litigation.
Court's observations
It observed: "It is sometimes said that in a trial the parties already know the truth and it is the judge on the trial. The observation is a sobering one and the present case illustrates why. Before us are two litigants, each of who have approached the court in the confident expectation of vindication, and neither of whom has been candid with it. Every fact of consequence has had to be prised out of a record in which suppression, embellishment and afterthought are the common currency of both sides. The machinery of justice is not a facility placed at the disposal of parties to settle scores, to salvage reputations they themselves imperilled, or to extract advantage from a controversy of their own making. We say at the outset, giving our reasons in what follows, that neither the appellant nor the respondents leave this court with credit.
We are left with the observations with which we began: each of these parties has come to us complaining of a wrong, and each has been the author of a good part of it. Between them, they have occupied the time of the Bar Council of India, a High Court and this Court for eleven years. That time belonged to other litigants waiting for release they genuinely need. We record our strong disapproval of the conduct of both. In view of the above observations, the impugned order dated 11th August 2025 is upheld. civil appeal no. 12256/ 2025, civil appeal no. 7959/2026 and transfer case no. 30/ 2026 are all dismissed.
In view of the conduct of each party, we deem it fit to impose costs. The appellant and the respondent shall each pay Rs. 5 lac to be deposited to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks, failing which it shall be recovered in accordance with law. The pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."
After the judgment was pronounced, one counsel requested that the names of the parties may be redacted. However, Justice Nath refused and orally remarked that when advocates have been fighting all over on social media, there is no need for their names to be redacted in a Court's order. "Both of you have been putting everything on social media, you gave that interview."
Case Details: REHANA KHAN v RIZWAN SIDDHIQUEE|C.A. No. 12256/2025 & RIZWAN SIDDIQUEE v REHANA KHAN|C.A. No. 7959/2026