Supreme Court of India· 21 August 2026

Must a litigant have clean hands to seek enhanced punishment before the Supreme Court?

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 complainant seeking enhancement of a disciplinary penalty must come with clean hands, and refused enhancement here because the appellant had suppressed material facts about her own conduct.

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 20As regards the appellant's prayers, there is a further difficulty. She asks this Court to enhance a punishment in her favour, and one who asks for that must come to us with clean hands. She has not. The material on record, including exchanges she has herself relied upon, shows that while the engagement subsisted she and the respondent were in discussion about the means by which the police official might be trapped, which is not the conduct of a client simply seeking legal advice. Nor is her account of what followed complete. She appeared before the electronic media on 28th July 2014 of her own volition and spoke of her case, though her grievance before us is that her case was made public. Further, the police official was discharged on 4th December 2015, and that order has never been challenged by her. Having been less than candid about each of these matters, she cannot ask us to enlarge a relief granted to her. Her prayer for enhancement is refused and Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025 is dismissed.

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

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