Lawyer Cannot Disclose Privileged Information On TV Even If Client Becomes Adversary: Supreme Court Upholds Suspension Of Advocate Rizwan Siddique, Slaps ₹5 Lakh Cost On Both Parties

"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." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated August 21, 2026, held that an advocate is strictly prohibited from publicly disclosing privileged communications and confidential information received from a client, emphasizing that an advocate's ethical obligations do not cease merely because the client has subsequently turned hostile or become an adversary.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi delivered the stern reprimand while upholding the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India's decision to suspend advocate Rizwan Siddiquee for two years under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 for professional misconduct.

Dispute Over Leaked Privileged Communications And Media Trial

The proceedings arose after Ms. Rehana Khan engaged advocate Rizwan Siddiquee in 2013–2014 regarding alleged harassment by a senior police official. After relations soured and the client lodged a First Information Report naming the advocate as being under the police official's influence, the advocate appeared in televised media interviews on 'Aaj Tak' and 'Zee News', broadcasting recorded private conversations and messaging exchanges with his former client. Aggrieved by the Bar Council of India's order suspending the advocate for two years and imposing fines, both the client seeking permanent debarment and ₹2 crore compensation and the advocate challenging the misconduct finding approached the top court.

Questions Formulated By The Top Court

The primary question before the court was whether the Bar Council of India Disciplinary Committee's finding of professional misconduct against the advocate for disclosing confidential client information in media interviews is sustainable in law. The court was also called upon to determine whether the two-year suspension and monetary penalty imposed on the advocate called for any enhancement upon the plea of the complainant.

Advocate Cannot Breach Client Confidentiality To Settle Personal Scores - Advocate's Duty Of Confidentiality Is Absolute And Unconditional

Addressing the advocate's justification that he participated in television interviews solely to defend his reputation after being named in an FIR, the bench firmly rejected the defense, declaring that professional ethics cannot be abandoned when an advocate faces adversity from a client. Writing for the bench, Justice Vikram Nath underscored that an advocate who considers himself falsely accused has lawful remedies such as placing his version before investigating agencies or suing for defamation, but cannot air privileged client discussions on public television channels.

"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."

No Denial Of Natural Justice In BCI Proceedings

The top court dismissed the advocate's preliminary procedural objection that the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India had passed an ex-parte order without proper notice at his updated address. The bench observed that the advocate had actively filed a written statement, engaged counsel, and participated in the recording of evidence, thereby holding that a party who participated throughout cannot belatedly allege lack of hearing as an afterthought.

"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."

Complainant Must Approach Court With Clean Hands For Enhancement - Court Rejects Plea For Enhanced Debarment And ₹2 Crore Compensation

Refusing the complainant's plea for permanent removal of the advocate from the roll of advocates and ₹2 crore compensation, the bench observed that a litigant seeking enhancement of punishment must approach the court with clean hands. The court highlighted that the record indicated the complainant was in discussions regarding trapping the police official during the subsistence of the legal engagement, had herself spoken before electronic media, and had suppressed the fact that the criminal proceedings against the police official had attained finality by way of discharge.

Manufactured Controversy Wasted Judicial Time Across Eleven Years

Expressing profound disapproval of the conduct of both litigants, the apex court observed that the parties had prolonged a manufactured spectacle across the Bar Council of India, the Bombay High Court, and the Supreme Court for eleven years. The bench noted with dismay that this protracted dispute consumed valuable judicial time that rightfully belonged to genuine litigants awaiting crucial legal remedies.

Dismissing all appeals and transferred writ petitions, the Supreme Court affirmed the Bar Council of India's order holding advocate Rizwan Siddiquee guilty of professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The top court additionally imposed costs of ₹5,00,000 each on both the appellant and the respondent, directed to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.

Date of Decision: August 21, 2026