New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld a professional misconduct finding against advocate Rizwan Siddiquee for disclosing confidential communications with a former client during television interviews, ruling that an advocate’s duty to protect client confidentiality continues even after the professional relationship has ended.
A three-judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed the cross proceedings arising from disciplinary action against Siddiquee. The Court upheld the Bar Council of India’s decision to remove his name from the roll of advocates for two years, during which he cannot appear before any court, tribunal or authority.
The Court also imposed Rs 5 lakh in costs on both Siddiquee and his former client, Rehana Khan.
Supreme Court Says Confidentiality Continues After Representation Ends
The case arose from Siddiquee’s professional relationship with Khan, whom he represented during part of 2013 and 2014.
Khan had approached Siddiquee in connection with allegations against a senior police official. She subsequently accused the advocate of disclosing confidential information and communications that had been shared during their professional relationship.
The dispute later became public, with both parties speaking to the media. During a television interview on August 5, 2014, Siddiquee disclosed conversations and other material relating to his former client.
The Supreme Court rejected his argument that he was entitled to disclose the information because he was no longer acting as Khan’s advocate and was responding to allegations made against him.
The Bench held that an advocate cannot use information received confidentially from a client against that client merely because the professional relationship has ended.
Advocate Could Defend Himself Without Revealing Client Information
The Court acknowledged that an advocate accused of wrongdoing is entitled to defend himself. However, it said that right does not extend to publicly disclosing privileged communications.
According to the judgment, Siddiquee could have presented his version before the investigating agency or pursued other legal remedies if he believed he had been falsely accused. The Court found that taking the dispute to television and revealing confidential communications crossed the professional boundary.
The confidentiality obligation, the Court made clear, is not dependent on whether the client and advocate remain on good terms.
Bar Council’s Two-Year Suspension Upheld
The Bar Council of India’s Disciplinary Committee had found Siddiquee guilty of professional misconduct on three grounds: the alleged unauthorised issuance of a legal notice, disclosure of confidential information that resulted in Khan being identified in the media, and derogatory public remarks concerning her.
It ordered that his name be removed from the roll of advocates for two years and barred him from appearing before courts, tribunals or other authorities during that period.
The Committee also directed him to pay Rs 3 lakh to Khan and deposit Rs 2 lakh with the Bar Council of India Welfare Fund.
The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the disciplinary punishment.
Algoritha Security Launches ‘Make in India’ Cyber Lab for Educational Institutions
Former Client’s Plea for Harsher Punishment Rejected
Khan had sought enhancement of the punishment, including permanent removal of Siddiquee from the roll of advocates and compensation of Rs 2 crore.
The Supreme Court declined to grant the request, holding that she too had not approached the Court with complete candour. The Bench referred to material concerning her interactions with Siddiquee and noted that she had herself appeared before the media regarding the dispute.
The Court also criticised both parties for prolonging the litigation, observing that the dispute had occupied the attention of the Bar Council of India, the High Court and the Supreme Court for years.
Both parties were consequently directed to pay Rs 5 lakh each to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.
The judgment, delivered on August 21, 2026, leaves the two-year disciplinary bar against Siddiquee intact while rejecting the former client’s request for a harsher penalty.
Follow the Centre for Police Technology on LinkedIn to stay updated on the latest developments in policing, cybersecurity, digital forensics, investigations, fraud risk management, and technology-driven public safety.
Centre for Police Technology on LinkedIn
About the author — Ananya Aradhya writes on cybercrime, fraud, scams, cybersecurity, digital safety, and emerging threats. Her work also covers major criminal cases, financial frauds, consumer scams, and stories that highlight risks affecting people in the real and digital world.
