Supreme Court upholds two-year suspension of lawyer who leaked client secrets

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a two-year suspension of an advocate's license, ruling that a lawyer's duty of confidentiality towards a client survives even if the client later becomes an adversary.…

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a two-year suspension of an advocate's license, ruling that a lawyer's duty of confidentiality towards a client survives even if the client later becomes an adversary. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi affirmed the Bar Council of India's disciplinary committee order against advocate Rizwan Siddique for disclosing confidential information of his former client, actress Rehana Khana (Rozlyn Khan), in television interviews in 2014.

Supreme Court upholds two-year suspension of lawyer who leaked client secrets

The case arose from a complaint by Khana, who had engaged Siddique as her counsel in 2013-2014 in a sexual assault case against a senior police official. In August 2014, Siddique gave TV interviews where he disclosed confidential communications, played recorded conversations, and called her complaint a "false case of rape." The BCI disciplinary committee found him guilty of professional misconduct on August 11, 2025, imposing a two-year suspension, a Rs 3 lakh fine payable to the complainant, and Rs 2 lakh to the Bar Council's welfare fund.

The court rejected Siddique's argument that proceedings were ex parte, noting he participated throughout. However, it dismissed Khana's plea for enhanced punishment, observing she had not approached with clean hands as she herself gave a press briefing while the matter was pending and discussed trapping the police official with her lawyer. The court imposed costs of Rs 5 lakh each on both parties, to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.

Indian Opinion Analysis

The ruling reinforces the fiduciary nature of the lawyer-client relationship under the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Council of India Rules. The court's disapproval of both parties' conduct is notable: it found the client had colluded in discussing entrapment of the police officer and later gave media interviews herself, yet still pursued a complaint. The Rs 5 lakh cost on each side sends a strong signal against wasting judicial time. The key number to watch is whether this judgment deters lawyers from using client secrets as a defence in public disputes, especially in high-profile cases involving celebrities and police officials.


Source: livelaw.in

This story was synthesised by AI from the source linked above.

Ask their opinion on this story
They have read this article, our coverage, and the web.
AI simulations of historical figures. Responses are generated from the historical record, not authentic statements.

0 Votes: 0 Upvotes, 0 Downvotes (0 Points)

Share your opinion

Loading Next Post...
Search Trending
Ask their opinion
Loading

Signing-in 3 seconds...

Signing-up 3 seconds...

All fields are required.