Back
Rehana Khan and : Supreme Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh for Wasting
In a stern rebuke that underscores the judiciary's zero-tolerance for abuse of its processes, the on imposed a cost of ₹5 lakh each on actress Rehana Khan (also known as Rozlyn Khan) and Mumbai-based advocate . The Bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, found that both parties had engaged in a protracted, 11-year legal battle marked by , embellished claims, and a . The Court directed the amounts to be deposited with the within four weeks, warning of recovery proceedings in case of default.
A Decade-Long Legal Saga
The dispute originated from a complaint filed by Khan against Siddiquee under , alleging . Khan accused her own advocate of breaching by disclosing confidential client information to the media, issuing a public notice without her consent, and making derogatory public remarks. The initiated disciplinary proceedings and ultimately found Siddiquee guilty, suspending his license for two years and ordering him to pay ₹3 lakh to the complainant and ₹2 lakh to the BCI.
Undeterred, both parties challenged the BCI's order—first before the and then before the Supreme Court. What followed was a labyrinthine legal tug-of-war that consumed over a decade of judicial resources.
Both Parties Lacked Candor
The Bench did not mince words when assessing the conduct of the litigants.
"Neither the appellant nor the respondents leave this court with credit,"
the judges observed. A meticulous examination of the record revealed that every significant fact had to be "prised out" of a record where
"suppression, embellishment and afterthought are the common currency of both sides."
The Court noted that both parties had withheld relevant material and approached the proceedings without
.
"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,"
the judgment remarked, highlighting the deliberate obscuration of facts.
as a Finite Resource
Perhaps the most pointed criticism was reserved for the sheer duration of the litigation. The Court stressed that the dispute had occupied the attention of the BCI, a High Court, and the Supreme Court for approximately 11 years.
"That time belonged to other litigants waiting for release they genuinely need,"
the Bench observed, emphasizing that
is a limited public resource that should not be squandered on frivolous or dishonest proceedings.
The Apex Court categorically rejected the notion that the justice system exists to settle personal scores or to salvage reputations that parties themselves have imperiled.
"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,"
the judgment stated.
Costs and Consequences
In upholding the BCI's disciplinary order, the Court dismissed all pending appeals—Civil Appeal No. 12256/2025, Civil Appeal No. 7959/2026, and Transfer Case No. 30/2026. The Bench then turned its attention to the conduct of both sides. Finding that each party had contributed substantially to the controversy and its prolonged litigation, it imposed a cost of ₹5 lakh on each, payable to the within four weeks. Failure to comply would result in recovery "in accordance with law."
Interestingly, after the judgment was pronounced, one of the counsel requested that the names of the parties be redacted. Justice Nath refused outright, noting that both parties had actively fought their battle on social media and given interviews, thus there was no need for anonymity in the Court's order.
A Strong Message from the Apex Court
This ruling sends a clear signal to the legal fraternity and litigants alike that the courts will not tolerate misuse of judicial processes. The imposition of costs on both sides—including the complainant who had originally alleged misconduct—demonstrates that the duty of candor is reciprocal. Neither a celebrity status nor the privilege of legal practice can shield a party from accountability for dishonesty in litigation.
The case also serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of engaging in prolonged, acrimonious disputes that could have been resolved at an earlier stage. The Supreme Court's insistence on preserving as a scarce commodity reinforces the need for and responsible litigation conduct.
Conclusion
By imposing substantial costs and upholding the BCI's disciplinary action, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle that justice is not a playground for personal vendettas. The judgment stands as a reminder that every participant in the judicial system—whether a high-profile actress or a seasoned advocate—must approach the court with honesty, transparency, and respect for the time and resources it expends. The 11-year ordeal has ended with both parties being left "without credit," a fitting epitaph for a litigation that should never have consumed so much of the judiciary's attention.
