In Rehana Khan v. Rizwan Siddiquee, Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025 along with connected case, a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi upheld the disciplinary action taken against an advocate who had appeared on television and spoken about communications and information exchanged with his former client.
The Court made it clear that professional confidentiality is not dependent upon the subsequent conduct of the client. Even where an advocate considers himself falsely implicated or unfairly targeted by a former client, confidential communications obtained during the professional engagement cannot become material for public retaliation.
The judgment, delivered on August 21, 2026, also stands out for the Court’s strong criticism of the conduct of both parties, ultimately imposing costs of ₹5 lakh each.
A Dispute That Went Beyond the Original Professional Engagement
The proceedings arose from a disciplinary complaint filed by Rehana Khan against advocate Rizwan Siddiquee. It was undisputed that Khan had engaged Siddiquee as her counsel and that the professional engagement continued for part of 2013 and 2014. According to Khan, after an altercation with her brother, she came into contact with a senior police official posted as Additional Commissioner of Police, Northern Regional Division, Mumbai.
She alleged that the police official remained in contact with her under the guise of assistance and subsequently attempted to assault her sexually. In connection with these circumstances, she approached Siddiquee and shared confidential details about her personal life, as well as material relating to her allegations.
A legal notice was subsequently sent to the police official through the advocate’s office. The circumstances surrounding the notice became disputed. Khan maintained that the notice dated July 15, 2014 had been issued without her authority, whereas Siddiquee claimed that the draft had been supplied by her and had originally been prepared by an advocate previously engaged by her.
On July 24, 2014, Khan lodged an FIR against the police official under Sections 376(2), 376C, 354 and 354D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Sections 64(2), 68, 74 and 78 BNS]. Significantly, the advocate was also named in the FIR as a person allegedly acting under the influence of the police official.
Television Interview Became Central to the Misconduct Proceedings
The controversy soon entered the public domain. On July 28, 2014, Khan appeared before the electronic media with her face covered and spoke about her case. A few days later, Siddiquee’s statement was recorded by the Women’s Atrocities Prevention Cell, Crime Branch, Byculla.
The crucial event occurred on August 5, 2014, when an interview given by Siddiquee was broadcast on television channels Aaj Tak and Zee News. Footage of conversations between the advocate and his former client, along with material stated to be messaging exchanges between them, was also broadcast.
Khan subsequently initiated disciplinary proceedings against Siddiquee under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, alleging professional misconduct.
Bar Council of India Found Professional Misconduct
The disciplinary complaint ultimately came before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India as B.C.I. Tr. Case No. 177 of 2018.
By its order dated August 11, 2025, the Disciplinary Committee found professional misconduct on three principal grounds: the unauthorised issuance of the legal notice dated July 15, 2014; disclosure of confidential information resulting in the complainant’s identification in the media; and derogatory public remarks concerning her.
The Committee ordered that Siddiquee’s name be removed from the roll of advocates maintained by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for two years. During that period, he was restrained from appearing before any court, tribunal or authority in India or holding himself out as an advocate.
It additionally imposed a ₹3 lakh fine payable to Khan and directed another ₹2 lakh to be deposited in the Welfare Fund of the Bar Council of India.
Neither side was satisfied. Khan approached the Supreme Court seeking enhancement of the punishment, including permanent removal of the advocate from the roll and compensation of ₹2 crore. Siddiquee, meanwhile, challenged the finding of professional misconduct itself.
Two Questions Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court identified two principal questions arising from the rival proceedings:
- Whether the findings of professional misconduct against the advocate could be sustained.
- Whether the punishment imposed by the Bar Council of India was so inadequate that it required enhancement.
Before reaching the substantive ethical question, the Court considered Siddiquee’s contention that the disciplinary order had been passed ex parte without proper notice of the final hearing.
The Court rejected the argument. It noted that the advocate had entered appearance, filed his written statement, been represented through counsel and participated in the recording of evidence. He was aware throughout that disciplinary proceedings were pending against him.
The Supreme Court described the objection as a “flimsy” afterthought and declined to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings on that basis.
Former Client Becoming an Adversary Does Not End Confidentiality
The Court then turned to the core professional misconduct allegation. While there remained uncertainty regarding the legal notice of July 15, 2014, the Supreme Court found one fact indisputable: on August 5, 2014, Siddiquee went on television and gave an interview concerning his relationship and communications with Khan.
During the broadcast, conversations between the two were played and material said to contain messaging exchanges was also shown.
The advocate did not deny giving the interview. His defence was essentially one of justification. He argued that Khan had already named him in the FIR, that he was no longer acting as her advocate by the time of the television interview and that he was merely responding to allegations publicly made against him.
The Supreme Court categorically rejected that justification.
“An advocate’s duty is not conditional upon the client’s continued good behaviour towards the advocate.”
The Court further declared:
“An advocate cannot use information received in confidence against his client, and the fact that she has since become his adversary makes no difference.”
This observation forms the central principle emerging from the judgment. The duty of confidentiality does not disappear simply because the advocate-client relationship has ended. Nor does it become inapplicable because relations between the advocate and former client have deteriorated.
What Can an Advocate Do If Falsely Accused by a Former Client?
Importantly, the Supreme Court recognised that an advocate who believes that a former client has falsely accused him is not left without legal remedies.
The Court pointed out that such an advocate may place his version before the investigating agency. Where appropriate, he may also pursue a defamation action.
What an advocate cannot do, however, is resort to the media and disclose privileged communications as a means of defending himself.
In the present case, the Court found it impermissible for the advocate to take his grievance to a television channel, disclose privileged communications, play recorded conversations with his former client and publicly describe her complaint as a false rape case while accusing her of seeking publicity.
The Court consequently held that the finding of professional misconduct on this ground was “unassailable” and, by itself, sufficient to sustain the punishment imposed by the Bar Council of India.
Accordingly, the advocate’s challenge to the disciplinary order failed.
Supreme Court Refuses to Enhance Punishment
The decision, however, did not result in a complete victory for Khan. She had sought permanent removal of Siddiquee from the roll of advocates as well as compensation of ₹2 crore. The Supreme Court refused to grant either relief.
The reason was the Court’s assessment of her own conduct. The Court observed that a person asking it to enhance punishment in her favour must approach the Court with clean hands. On examining the material, the Bench concluded that Khan had not done so.
The record indicated that while the professional engagement continued, Khan and Siddiquee had been discussing means through which the police official might be trapped. The Court observed that this was not the conduct of a client merely seeking legal advice.
The Court also took note of the fact that Khan had voluntarily appeared before the electronic media on July 28, 2014 and spoken about her case, although with her face covered.
Further, the police official against whom the FIR had been lodged was discharged by the Trial Court on December 4, 2015, and Khan had never challenged the discharge order.
Finding her less than candid regarding these matters, the Supreme Court refused to enhance the disciplinary punishment.
Confidentiality Survives the End of the Advocate-Client Relationship
The importance of the ruling extends beyond the unusual factual dispute between the parties. The judgment reinforces the continuing nature of professional confidentiality. Information is entrusted to an advocate precisely because a client must be able to communicate candidly while seeking legal assistance. The ethical character of that information does not change simply because the professional engagement subsequently terminates.
The ruling therefore draws an important distinction between an advocate’s right to defend himself and the methods that may legitimately be employed for such defence.
An advocate facing allegations from a former client can use lawful institutional remedies. The advocate can cooperate with an investigation, place relevant explanations before competent authorities and pursue appropriate legal proceedings. But the professional relationship cannot be converted into a repository of confidential information to be deployed publicly against the former client.
The Court’s reasoning is especially significant in an age where legal disputes can rapidly move from courtrooms to television studios and digital platforms. Public controversy does not dilute professional obligations merely because one party has already spoken to the media.
Court Strongly Disapproves Conduct of Both Parties
The judgment concludes on an unusually critical note. At the outset itself, the Supreme Court observed that neither party had been candid and that the justice system could not be treated as a facility for settling scores or salvaging reputations endangered by the parties’ own conduct.
By the conclusion of the proceedings, the Court noted that the controversy had occupied the time of the Bar Council of India, a High Court and the Supreme Court for eleven years.
The Bench recorded its strong disapproval of the conduct of both parties and upheld the Bar Council of India’s order dated August 11, 2025.
All three proceedings, Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025, Civil Appeal No. 7959 of 2026 and Transferred Case (Civil) No. 30 of 2026, were dismissed.
Going a step further, the Supreme Court imposed costs of ₹5 lakh each on Khan and Siddiquee, directing both amounts to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks, failing which they would be recovered in accordance with law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Rehana Khan v. Rizwan Siddiquee sends a clear message about the continuing ethical responsibilities of the legal profession.
An advocate does not acquire the freedom to reveal or weaponise confidential communications merely because the professional engagement has ended, relations have deteriorated, or the former client has turned against the advocate. The duty attached to information received in professional confidence survives the breakdown of the advocate-client relationship.
At the same time, the Court made clear that professional misconduct by an advocate does not entitle a complainant to enhanced relief where her own conduct before the Court lacks candour.
The judgment therefore operates on two distinct levels: it protects the sanctity of confidential advocate-client communications while simultaneously reiterating that litigants seeking discretionary relief must themselves approach the judicial process fairly and with clean hands.