Supreme Court Upholds 2-Year Suspension of Advocate for Professional Misconduct; Imposes Costs on Both Parties for Abuse of Process

Background

The appellant (client) engaged the respondent (advocate) in 2013-14. She later alleged that he issued a legal notice without authority, disclosed confidential information to the media, and made derogatory public remarks about her (including calling her complaint a false rape case) after she named him in an FIR against a police official.

The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India (order dated 11.08.2025) found the advocate guilty of professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. It suspended him for two years, imposed a fine of ₹3 lakh payable to the complainant, and directed ₹2 lakh to the Bar Council Welfare Fund.

Both sides appealed: the client sought enhancement (permanent removal + ₹2 crore compensation); the advocate sought complete setting aside of the order.

Supreme Court’s Findings

The Court delivered a strongly worded judgment criticising both parties for lack of candour, suppression, and abuse of the judicial process over 11 years.

On the Advocate’s Misconduct:

• The media interview given by the advocate on 5 August 2014 (broadcast on Aaj Tak and Zee News), in which he discussed privileged communications, played recorded conversations, and publicly attacked his former client, constituted clear professional misconduct.
• An advocate cannot use confidential information against a former client even after the relationship ends or the client turns adversarial.
• Remedies available to a wrongly accused advocate (statement to police, defamation suit) do not include taking the matter to television channels.

On the Client’s Conduct:

• She did not approach the Court with clean hands. The record showed discussions about “trapping” the police official, her own voluntary media appearance on 28 July 2014, and failure to challenge the police official’s discharge (which attained finality).
• Prayer for enhancement of punishment was therefore refused.

Decision

• Impugned BCI order upheld in its entirety.
• Advocate’s challenge (Transferred Case & Appeal) dismissed.
• Client’s appeal for enhancement dismissed.
• Both parties directed to pay ₹5 lakh each as costs to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks (recoverable if not paid).

Key Observation

“Neither the appellant nor the respondent leaves this Court with credit… Each of these parties has come to us complaining of a wrong, and each has been the author of a good part of it.”

The Court strongly disapproved of the parties having occupied the time of the Bar Council, High Court and Supreme Court for eleven years at the cost of other genuine litigants.

Significance

A stern reminder of an advocate’s duty of confidentiality and the consequences of public disclosure of privileged communications. Simultaneously, it underscores that parties seeking discretionary relief (including enhancement of punishment) must approach the Court with clean hands.

CASE DETAILS:

Rehana Khan v. Rizwan Siddhiquee (with connected Transferred Case & Appeal)
Citation: 2026 INSC 907
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta & Vijay Bishnoi
Date: 21 August 2026

Click HERE for full JUDGMENT.