Bench Comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi Affirms Two-Year Bar License Suspension of Advocate Rizwan Siddiquee, Imposing ₹5 Lakh Costs Each on Both Parties for Suppressing Fact
Supreme Court Affirms Two-Year Suspension of Advocate Rizwan Siddiquee and Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs Each on Both Parties
Client Confidentiality Survives Breakdown of Professional Relationship
The Supreme Court has reinforced the Advocate Client Confidentiality Duty while upholding a lawyer’s two-year suspension. The Court held that an advocate must protect confidential information received from a client. This obligation continues even when the former client becomes hostile or publicly accuses the lawyer.
A three-judge Bench delivered the ruling. It comprised Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi.
The Bench upheld the order of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Disciplinary Committee against advocate Rizwan Siddiquee.
Justice Vikram Nath authored the judgment, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 846. He stressed that professional confidentiality does not depend on a friendly relationship between a lawyer and client.
An advocate cannot use confidential information against a client merely because their relationship has deteriorated. A later dispute between them does not remove the lawyer’s professional obligations.
Background of Disciplinary Proceedings
The case arose from a complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Actress Rehana Khan alias Rozlyn Khan filed the complaint before the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.
She had engaged Siddiquee in 2013–2014 for legal representation. The matter involved sexual assault allegations against a senior police officer.
The complainant alleged that Siddiquee disclosed confidential communications during media interviews on August 5, 2014.
According to the complaint, he played recorded telephone conversations and displayed messaging exchanges. He also publicly described the client’s allegations as a “false case of rape.”
Further, he accused her of making the allegations for publicity. These disclosures later became the basis of the professional misconduct proceedings.
Bar Council of India Imposes Penalties
On August 11, 2025, the BCI Disciplinary Committee found Siddiquee guilty of professional misconduct.
The Committee suspended his licence to practise law for two years. It also imposed a ₹3 lakh fine payable to the complainant.
In addition, the BCI directed him to deposit ₹2 lakh into its Welfare Fund.
Both parties challenged the BCI decision before the Supreme Court. The complainant sought a harsher punishment. Meanwhile, the advocate challenged the misconduct finding and penalties.
Supreme Court Rejects Fair Hearing Argument
The advocate argued that the disciplinary proceedings denied him a fair hearing. However, the Supreme Court rejected this contention.
The Bench noted that he had submitted written statements and engaged legal counsel. He had also participated during the recording of evidence.
Therefore, the Court found no basis for his claim that he lacked adequate notice. It described the argument as a “flimsy afterthought.”
The ruling strengthens the Advocate Client Confidentiality Duty and makes clear that professional privilege survives personal disputes.
Supreme Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs on Both Parties
The Supreme Court also criticised both parties for suppressing material facts in their pleadings.
The Bench found that neither side had approached the Court with complete disclosure. As a result, it refused the complainant’s request for enhanced punishment.
The Court dismissed both cross-appeals. It also imposed costs of ₹5 lakh each on the complainant and the advocate.
Both parties must deposit the amount with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.
The judgment sends a clear message about professional ethics in legal practice. Lawyers cannot disclose privileged client information simply because the professional relationship later turns hostile.
