Back
Supreme Court Upholds Two-Year Suspension of Rehana Khan's Advocate for Client Confidentiality Breach
In a strongly worded judgment, the upheld the two-year suspension of advocate for disclosing the confidential information of his former client, actress Rehana Khan, in television interviews. A three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi ruled that an advocate’s does not end when a client becomes an adversary. The Court dismissed cross-appeals from both parties and imposed costs of ₹5,00,000 each on them for wasting judicial time.
A Story of Mutual Blame
The dispute arose from a professional engagement during 2013-2014 when Rehana Khan, who has appeared in films, hired Siddiquee as her lawyer in connection with allegations of attempted sexual assault against a senior police official. According to Khan, she shared sensitive personal details and documents with her advocate in confidence. The relationship soured when a legal notice was issued to the official in July 2014. Shortly thereafter, Khan lodged an FIR against the police official, naming Siddiquee as a person acting under the official’s influence.
Matters escalated on , when Siddiquee gave interviews to news channels ‘’ and ‘’. During these broadcasts, he played recorded conversations with his client, disclosed messaging exchanges, and publicly characterized her complaint as a “false case of rape” while accusing her of seeking publicity.
Khan later filed a complaint under before the , which was transferred to the . On , the Disciplinary Committee held Siddiquee guilty of and imposed a two-year suspension from practice, a fine of ₹3,00,000 payable to Khan, and directed ₹2,00,000 to be deposited in the Welfare Fund. Both parties appealed — Siddiquee sought to quash the findings entirely, while Khan sought enhancement of punishment, including permanent debarment and ₹2 crore compensation.
No Justification for Breaching Confidence
The Supreme Court flatly rejected the advocate’s justification that he went on television only to respond to the accusations made against him after being named in the FIR. Directly addressing the core legal principle, the bench observed:
“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 clarified the appropriate remedies available to a lawyer who considers himself falsely accused:
“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 , or he may sue in defamation. What he may not do is take his grievance to a television channel and there disclose , play recorded conversations with his former client, and describe her complaint as a false case of rape while accusing her of seeking publicity.”
The bench also rejected Siddiquee’s argument that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted , noting that he had participated throughout and was aware of the allegations. Calling the plea a “flimsy afterthought”, the Court observed that “a party who has been present throughout cannot be heard to say that he was absent, especially one who is himself an advocate.”
No for the Complainant
While dismissing Siddiquee’s challenge, the Court also turned down Khan’s request for enhanced punishment. The judgment noted that Khan herself had not come to the Court with . She had voluntarily appeared before the media on , to speak about her case, and the record showed that she had discussed with Siddiquee ways to “trap” the police official — which was not the conduct of a client simply seeking legal advice.
The bench observed:
“Having been less than candid about each of these matters, she cannot ask us to enlarge a relief granted to her.”
The Court also pointed out that the police official was discharged by the trial court on , and that Khan had never challenged that order.
A Strong Message Against
In striking terms, the Supreme Court expressed severe disapproval of the conduct of both litigants. The judgment opened with the observation:
“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.”
Concluding, the bench remarked: “Between them they have occupied the time of the , 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 Court upheld the Disciplinary Committee’s order in its entirety, dismissed all appeals, and directed both parties to deposit ₹5,00,000 each with the within four weeks. The judgment reaffirms that confidentiality lies at the core of the lawyer-client relationship and cannot be sacrificed even in the face of personal attack from a former client.
