Advocate Cannot Air Client Confidences on Television, Even After Client Turns Adversary: Supreme Court

A three-judge bench upholds disbarment for two years and Rs 3 lakh compensation against an advocate who gave a televised interview disclosing privileged communications with his former client.

The Supreme Court on 21 August 2026 dismissed all three cross-proceedings arising from a disciplinary order against Mumbai advocate Rizwan Siddique, ruling that an advocate's duty to protect client confidences does not end when the client names him in a criminal case. The Court, comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, upheld the Bar Council of India's decision to remove Siddique from the roll of advocates for two years, direct payment of Rs 3 lakh to the complainant Rehana Khan, and deposit Rs 2 lakh in the Bar Council of India Welfare Fund. The Court found that Siddique's televised interview — in which he disclosed conversations with his former client and characterised her sexual assault complaint as a false case — was an unambiguous breach of professional duty that no justification could cure. At the same time, the Court refused to enhance the punishment and censured Khan for her own lack of candour, dismissing her appeal as well. Both parties were directed to pay costs of Rs 5 lakh each to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court

The origins of the case lie in 2013 and 2014, when Rehana Khan engaged Rizwan Siddique as her advocate in connection with her complaint against a senior Mumbai police official. Khan alleged that the official, then posted as Additional Commissioner of Police, Northern Regional Division, had attempted to sexually assault her. She approached Siddique for legal assistance and, in that context, shared confidential personal details and material bearing on the allegations.

A legal notice was addressed to the police official through Siddique's office. The parties disputed whether the notice dated 15 July 2014 was issued with Khan's authority. Khan said it was not; Siddique maintained it was drawn from a draft she herself supplied and was dispatched on her instructions, first on 8 July 2014 and again on 15 July 2014.

On 24 July 2014, Khan lodged an FIR against the police official under Sections 376(2), 376C, 354 and 354D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In that FIR, she named Siddique as a person acting under the official's influence. Four days later, on 28 July 2014, Khan herself appeared before electronic media — face covered — and spoke about her case.

Events escalated rapidly. On 4 August 2014, Siddique's statement was recorded by the Women's Atrocities Prevention Cell, Crime Branch, Byculla. The following day, 5 August 2014, an interview he gave was broadcast on the television channels Aaj Tak and Zee News. Footage of conversations between Khan and Siddique, and material characterised as their messaging exchanges, was also broadcast alongside. On 13 August 2014, his office was searched by the investigating agency; that search too was broadcast on television the next day.

In February 2015, Khan filed a complaint against Siddique under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 before the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, registered as Disciplinary Case No. 64 of 2015. Separately, the police official was discharged by the Trial Court on 4 December 2015; Khan did not challenge that order and it attained finality.

The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa transferred the matter to the Bar Council of India, where it was taken up as B.C.I. Tr. Case No. 177 of 2018. By order dated 11 August 2025, the Disciplinary Committee found Siddique guilty and imposed the two-year removal along with the monetary directions.

Khan appealed to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025) seeking enhancement of the punishment. Siddique challenged the order first before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in Writ Petition No. 11765 of 2025, but by order dated 27 November 2025, the Supreme Court directed that those records be transmitted to it and the matters heard together. The writ petition was re-registered as T.C.(C) No. 30 of 2026. Siddique additionally preferred Civil Appeal No. 7959 of 2026 against the same Disciplinary Committee order.

Respondent's Challenge: Fair Hearing and Denial of Misconduct

Siddique raised two distinct lines of attack before the Supreme Court. First, he contended that the Disciplinary Committee's order was passed ex parte, without serving notice of the final hearing at his correct and updated address, which he said vitiated the entire proceedings. Second, he denied that any professional misconduct had occurred.

On the facts, Siddique's counsel submitted that he had advised Khan that her grievance did not disclose an offence of rape and that at most a case of non-performance of duty was made out. His case was that Khan wished to appear on a reality television programme and was seeking publicity. He denied disclosing her identity to the media, pointing out that she had herself appeared before the press on 28 July 2014. As to the televised interview, he said he was by then no longer her counsel, that she had already publicly accused him, that his office had been searched and the search broadcast, and that his participation in the broadcast was solely to answer the accusations made against him. He urged the Court to set aside the Disciplinary Committee's order in its entirety.

The Court's Reasoning on Professional Misconduct

The Court dealt with the fair-hearing objection first and disposed of it briefly. It found that Siddique had entered appearance, filed a written statement, was represented by counsel, and participated in the recording of evidence throughout the disciplinary proceedings from their institution down to August 2025. The Court described the ground as “flimsy” and an afterthought, adding that a party who has been present throughout cannot claim he was absent — especially one who is himself an advocate.

On the substance, the Court focused on the undisputed fact of the television interview on 5 August 2014. Siddique's written statement before the Disciplinary Committee had not denied that he gave the interview; his answer was one of justification. The Disciplinary Committee was therefore bound to proceed on the basis that the interview was given.

The Court rejected the justification. It held that an advocate's duty to protect client confidences is not conditional upon the client's continued good behaviour towards the advocate. The Court stated plainly that an advocate cannot use information received in confidence against his client, and that the fact that she has since become his adversary makes no difference.

The Court identified what Siddique had actually done in the interview: he disclosed privileged communications, caused recorded conversations with his former client to be played on air, and publicly described her sexual assault complaint as a false case of rape while accusing her of seeking publicity. The Court acknowledged that an advocate who considers himself falsely accused has available remedies — placing his version before the investigating agency (which Siddique did on 4 August 2014) or suing in defamation. What he may not do, the Court held, is “take his grievance to a television channel and there disclose privileged communications.”

The finding of professional misconduct on this count was described by the Court as unassailable and, standing alone, sufficient to sustain the punishment imposed. The Court found no ground to interfere with the Disciplinary Committee's order.

Why Enhancement Was Refused: Khan's Own Conduct

The appellant's prayer was for permanent removal from the roll and compensation of Rs 2 crore. The Court declined both.

The Court applied the principle that one who asks for enhancement of a punishment in her favour must come to court with clean hands. It found that Khan had not. The material on record, including exchanges she herself relied upon, showed that during the subsistence of the engagement, she and Siddique had discussed means by which the police official might be trapped — conduct, the Court said, not consistent with that of a client simply seeking legal advice.

The Court also noted that Khan's account of subsequent events was incomplete. She had appeared before the electronic media on 28 July 2014 of her own volition and spoken of her case, yet her grievance was that her case had been made public. And the discharge of the police official on 4 December 2015 had never been challenged by her, though her case before the Court depended substantially on the credibility of that complaint. Having been less than candid about each of these matters, the Court held she could not seek enlargement of the relief already granted to her. Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025 was dismissed.

Costs and the Court's Disapproval

The Court's closing observations were directed at both parties. It recorded that between them, they had occupied the time of the Bar Council of India, a High Court and the Supreme Court for eleven years, and that this time belonged to other litigants waiting for reliefs they genuinely needed. The Court recorded its “strong disapproval of the conduct of both.”

In consequence, each party was directed to pay costs of Rs 5 lakh to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from the date of judgment. The Court specified that failure to comply would result in recovery in accordance with law.

Order

The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India's order dated 11 August 2025 in B.C.I. Tr. Case No. 177 of 2018 is upheld. Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025, Civil Appeal No. 7959 of 2026, and T.C.(C) No. 30 of 2026 are all dismissed. Rehana Khan and Rizwan Siddique are each directed to pay costs of Rs 5 lakh to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks. The two-year removal of Siddique from the roll of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, the Rs 3 lakh payable to Khan, and the Rs 2 lakh to be deposited in the Bar Council of India Welfare Fund, as directed by the Disciplinary Committee, stand.