In a significant ruling on professional ethics, the Supreme Court on August 21 affirmed the two-year suspension of an advocate's license for disclosing confidential information of his former client on television.
The Case:
The complainant, actress Rehana Khana @ Rozlyn Khan, had engaged Advocate Rizwan Siddique in 2013-14 regarding allegations of sexual assault against a senior police official. The complaint before the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, alleged that on August 5, 2014, the advocate gave TV interviews where he disclosed privileged communications, played recorded conversations, broadcast private messages, and publicly branded her complaint as a "false case of rape" filed for publicity.
The Bar Council of India's Disciplinary Committee, vide order dated August 11, 2025, held him guilty of professional misconduct and suspended his license for two years, imposed a fine of Rs. 3 lakh to be paid to the complainant and Rs. 2 lakh to the BCI Welfare Fund.
Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court - the client seeking enhancement of punishment and the advocate seeking its quashing.
Supreme Court's Observations:
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, in a judgment authored by Justice Nath, upheld the BCI order.
1. Confidentiality is Non-Negotiable: The Court held that an advocate's duty of confidentiality is not conditional.
“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.”
The termination of the attorney-client relationship does not give an advocate the right to reveal sensitive information to counter public allegations made against him.
2. Rejection of Procedural Defence: The Court rejected the advocate's claim that the BCI order was ex parte without proper notice. It noted that he had entered appearance, filed a written statement, was represented by counsel, and participated in evidence recording. "A party who has been present throughout cannot be heard to say that he was absent, especially one who is himself an advocate."
3. No Enhancement - Client Also Not Candid: The Court declined the appellant's plea for higher punishment, noting she did not come with clean hands. The record showed she had discussed with the respondent "the means by which the police official might be trapped," she herself had appeared before the electronic media on July 28, 2014 to discuss her case, and she never challenged the discharge of the police official on December 4, 2015.
Disapproving of the conduct of both parties for suppressing material facts, the Court disposed of both appeals, sustaining the 2-year suspension and imposing costs of Rs. 5 lakh each on the appellant and the respondent to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.
Key Takeaway: This judgment reinforces Rule 22 of the BCI Rules and Section 126 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam - the lawyer-client privilege survives the end of the professional relationship, and self-defence in the media cannot be a justification for its breach.
No comments:
Post a Comment