The Supreme Court on August 21, 2026, upheld the disciplinary action against advocate Rizwan Siddiquee, finding that his television interview in which he discussed his former client's confidential communications was sufficient to sustain the finding of professional misconduct.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi also dismissed the connected appeals and imposed costs of ₹5 lakh each on Rehana Khan and Rizwan Siddiquee.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from proceedings before the Bar Council of India concerning Siddiquee's professional conduct during his engagement as Khan's counsel in 2013-14.
Khan had complained that confidential information shared with her lawyer later became public. The Bar Council of India's Disciplinary Committee, by its order dated August 11, 2025, held that the unauthorised issuance of a legal notice, disclosure of confidential information and public remarks concerning Khan amounted to professional misconduct.
It directed that Siddiquee's name be removed from the advocates' roll for two years. During that period, he was restrained from appearing before courts, tribunals or authorities. It also imposed a ₹3 lakh payment to Khan and ₹2 lakh to the Bar Council of India's Welfare Fund.
Both sides challenged the order before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court's Observation
The Court rejected Siddiquee's argument that he was justified in speaking publicly because he had already been named in the FIR and was no longer acting as Khan's counsel.
The Bench observed:
“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 Court further held that an advocate who believes that he has been falsely accused has legal remedies, but cannot disclose privileged communications or recorded conversations with a former client through the media.
“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.”
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the finding of professional misconduct based on the television interview was sustainable and sufficient to uphold the punishment imposed by the Bar Council of India.
The Court also refused Khan's request to enhance the punishment, noting that the material on record showed that she had not been fully candid about relevant circumstances.
Accordingly, Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025, Civil Appeal No. 7959 of 2026 and T.C.(C) No. 30 of 2026 were dismissed. The August 11, 2025 disciplinary order was upheld.
The Court also directed both parties to pay ₹5 lakh each as costs to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.
Case Details:
Case Title: Rehana Khan v. Rizwan Siddhiquee
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi.
Decision Date: August 21, 2026.
-300x169.webp)
