Supreme Court of India· 21 August 2026

Can an advocate disclose a former client's confidential information to media after the relationship turns hostile?

REHANA KHAN v. RIZWAN SIDDHIQUEE

2026 INSC 907 · CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12256 OF 2025
Coram: Vikram Nath; Sandeep Mehta; Vijay Bishnoi

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.35 Advocates Act, 1961 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. The Court held that an advocate's duty to protect a former client's confidential information does not lapse because the client has become adversarial; an advocate who feels falsely accused may approach the investigating agency or sue for defamation, but may not disclose privileged communications on television.

Headnote

Advocates Act, 1961 — s.35 — Professional misconduct — Confidential information — Fair hearing — Clean hands — Advocates Act, 1961 — s.35 — Confidential information survives hostility — Held: An advocate's duty to protect a former client's confidential information does not lapse because the client has become adversarial. An advocate who feels falsely accused may approach the investigating agency or sue for defamation, but may not disclose privileged communications on television. (¶17, 18) Fair hearing — Participation defeats ex parte plea — Held further: A respondent who filed a written statement, was represented by counsel and participated throughout disciplinary proceedings cannot later claim denial of a fair hearing for defective service of the notice of the final hearing. Active participation defeats a belated ex parte plea. (¶14) Equitable relief — Clean hands required for enhancement — Held further: A litigant seeking enhancement of a penalty must come to court with clean hands. Suppression of material facts about her own conduct disentitles a complainant from enlarging relief already granted in her favour. (¶20) Professional misconduct — Disposal and costs — Held further: All three matters are dismissed, the Bar Council of India's finding of professional misconduct and the two-year removal from the roll of advocates stand affirmed, and each side is directed to pay costs of Rs. 5,00,000 for having been less than candid. (¶19, 20, 22, 23)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 17The justification offered is that the appellant had by then named the respondent in the FIR of 24th July 2014, that he was no longer her counsel, that he was being pursued by the media, and that he spoke only to answer the accusations made against him. This justification does not suffice. 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.

Paragraph 18An advocate who considers himself falsely accused is not without remedies. He may place his version before the investigating agency, as indeed the respondent did on 4th August 2014 or he may sue in defamation. 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.

Acts & Sections

s.35 Advocates Act, 1961

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of REHANA KHAN v. RIZWAN SIDDHIQUEE — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Does participating throughout disciplinary proceedings waive a later claim of denial of a fair hearing?Must a litigant have clean hands to seek enhanced punishment before the Supreme Court?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections