Supreme Court of India· 21 August 2026

Does participating throughout disciplinary proceedings waive a later claim of denial of a fair hearing?

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

Yes. The Court held that a respondent who filed a written statement, was represented by counsel and participated throughout the Bar Council of India's disciplinary proceedings cannot later claim denial of a fair hearing merely because the notice of the final hearing was defectively served.

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 14The respondent has urged that he was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the Disciplinary Committee, the impugned order having been passed ex parte and without service of notice of the final hearing at his correct and updated address. We have examined the record with care, and the ground does not survive scrutiny. The respondent entered appearance and he filed a written statement refuting the allegations. He was represented by counsel, and he participated in the recording of evidence. It is clear that he knew, from the institution of the disciplinary case, down to the passing of the impugned order in August 2025, that proceedings were pending against him and what those proceedings alleged. A party who has been present throughout cannot be heard to say that he was absent, especially one who is himself an advocate. The ground is flimsy and is, in our view, an afterthought, taken because no better one was available

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

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