The Supreme Court of India, comprising a three-judge bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, has ruled that an advocate cannot breach client confidentiality or disclose privileged communications in the media, even if the client subsequently turns into an adversary. Upholding the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India’s order suspending advocate Rizwan Siddique for two years and imposing financial penalties, the Court dismissed cross-appeals filed by both the advocate and his former client, Rehana Khan, while directing both parties to pay ₹5,00,000 each in costs for misusing the judicial process.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Rehana Khan, engaged the respondent, advocate Rizwan Siddique, during 2013 and 2014 after alleging an attempted sexual assault by a senior police official. On 15 July 2014, a legal notice was issued to the official from the respondent’s office. Subsequently, on 24 July 2014, the appellant lodged an FIR against the police official under Sections 376(2), 376C, 354, and 354D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, wherein she named the respondent as acting under the official’s influence.
Following the FIR, the respondent’s statement was recorded by the police, and on 5 August 2014, interviews given by him were broadcast on television channels ‘Aaj Tak’ and ‘Zee News’. The broadcasts featured recorded conversations and messaging exchanges between the advocate and the appellant. The appellant later filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 before the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, which was subsequently transferred to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.
On 11 August 2025, the Disciplinary Committee held the respondent guilty of professional misconduct for the unauthorised issuance of the notice, disclosing confidential information that led to the complainant’s identification, and making derogatory public remarks. It suspended him from practice for two years, imposed a fine of ₹3,00,000 payable to the appellant, and ordered ₹2,00,000 to be deposited into the Bar Council of India Welfare Fund. Both parties challenged the order before the Supreme Court: the appellant sought enhanced punishment including permanent debarment and ₹2 crore compensation, while the respondent sought to set aside the findings of misconduct.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing in person, the appellant contended that the advocate breached a fiduciary relationship of trust by coordinating with the opposite party and releasing confidential personal details to the media. She submitted that the advocate publicly labelled her complaint a false case of rape and accused her of sensationalising the matter, causing irreversible harm to her dignity, privacy, and social standing.
Counsel for the respondent argued that the legal notice was dispatched on the appellant’s instructions based on a pre-existing draft, and that he had advised her that no sexual offence was made out. He submitted that after being named in the FIR and facing media harassment and an office search, he participated in the broadcast solely to defend himself against public accusations, arguing that he was no longer her counsel at the time. He further claimed the disciplinary order was vitiated as it was passed ex parte without service of notice of the final hearing at his updated address.
Counsel for the Bar Council of India supported the Disciplinary Committee’s order, submitting that the findings were fully substantiated and the punishment was proportionate.
The Court’s Analysis
Opening the judgment, the Court observed:
“It is sometimes said that in a trial the parties already know the truth, and that it is the judge who is on trial. The observation is a sobering one, and the present case illustrates why. Before us are two litigants, each of whom has approached this 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 have themselves imperilled, or to extract advantage from a controversy of their own making. We say at the outset, and give our reasons in what follows, that neither the appellant nor the respondent leaves this Court with credit.”
The bench rejected the respondent’s plea of lack of hearing, noting that he had participated throughout the proceedings, filed written statements, and engaged counsel. Addressing the breach of confidentiality, the Court firmly rejected the advocate’s justification:
“The justification offered is that the appellant had by then named the respondent in the FIR of 24th July 2014, that he was no longer her counsel, that he was being pursued by the media, and that he spoke only to answer the accusations made against him. This justification does not suffice. 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.”
The Court further observed:
“An advocate who considers himself falsely accused is not without remedies. He may place his version before the investigating agency, as indeed the respondent did on 4th August 2014 or he may sue in defamation. What he may not do is take his grievance to a television channel and there disclose privileged communications, play recorded conversations with his former client, and describe her complaint as a false case of rape while accusing her of seeking publicity.”
Regarding the appellant’s plea for enhanced punishment, the Court held that she did not approach the Court with clean hands, noting that she had discussed entrapping the official, had herself spoken voluntarily to the media on 28 July 2014, and never challenged the trial court’s 4 December 2015 order discharging the police official.
Expressing severe disapproval of both parties, the bench noted:
“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 reliefs they genuinely need. We record our strong disapproval of the conduct of both.”
The Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the Disciplinary Committee’s order dated 11 August 2025 and dismissed all appeals. In addition, the Court directed both the appellant and the respondent to pay costs of ₹5,00,000 each to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.
Case Title: Rehana Khan vs. Rizwan Siddiquee
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025 (with Transferred Case (Civil) No. 30 of 2026 and Civil Appeal No. 7959 of 2026)
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Date: August 21, 2026
