The SC fined lawyer Rizwan Siddiquee and his ex-client Rs 5 lakh each for misusing the justice system. The court also upheld the Bar Council of India's two-year suspension of the advocate for professional misconduct after he disclosed client secrets.

New Delhi [India], August 21 (ANI): The Supreme Court has imposed costs of Rs 5 lakh each on a lawyer and his former client for using the justice delivery system to pursue a dispute that they themselves had helped create and prolong.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi also upheld the two-year suspension imposed on advocate Rizwan Siddiquee by the Bar Council of India (BCI) for professional misconduct after he disclosed confidential communications with his former client, Rehana Khan, during a television interview.

Misuse of Justice System

The Court said the justice system cannot be used by litigants to settle personal scores, salvage their reputations or gain an advantage from a dispute of their own making. "The machinery of justice is not a facility placed at the disposal of parties to settle scores, to salvage reputations they have themselves imperilled, or to extract advantage from a controversy of their own making," the Court said.

The Court directed both parties to pay Rs 5 lakh each to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks. "The appellant and the respondent shall each pay costs of Rs. 5,00,000 to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today, failing which it shall be recovered in accordance to law," the Court directed.

The Court said both sides had approached it seeking relief while withholding or embellishing material facts. Their dispute had occupied the Bar Council of India, the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court for 11 years. "That time belonged to other litigants, waiting for reliefs they genuinely need. We record our strong disapproval of the conduct of both," the Court said.

Lawyer's Suspension and Disciplinary Action

The Court also rejected Siddiquee's challenge to the disciplinary action against him and upheld the BCI order removing his name from the rolls for two years.

The Complaint and Misconduct

The disciplinary proceedings arose from a complaint filed by Khan, who had engaged Siddiquee as her counsel in 2013-14. She alleged that she had shared confidential details of her personal life and information relating to her allegations against a senior police officer with him.

In July 2014, Khan lodged an FIR against the police officer, alleging offences including rape and sexual harassment. Siddiquee was also named in the FIR as a person acting under the influence of the police officer.

On August 5, 2014, Siddiquee appeared in television interviews during which he spoke about his relationship with Khan and the information she had shared with him. Recorded conversations and messaging exchanges between them were also broadcast.

Khan subsequently filed a professional misconduct complaint against Siddiquee before the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa in February 2015. The matter was later transferred to the BCI Disciplinary Committee.

In August 2025, the BCI Disciplinary Committee found Siddiquee guilty of professional misconduct on three counts -- issuing a legal notice without authorisation, disclosing confidential information that led to Khan's identification in the media, and making derogatory public remarks about her. The committee ordered that his name be removed from the rolls for two years. During this period, he was restrained from appearing before any court, tribunal or authority and from holding himself out as an advocate. It also imposed a Rs 3 lakh fine payable to Khan and directed him to deposit Rs 2 lakh with the BCI Welfare Fund.

Siddiquee challenged the disciplinary order before the Bombay High Court and subsequently before the Supreme Court. Khan, meanwhile, approached the Supreme Court seeking enhancement of the punishment and Rs 2 crore in compensation.

Court's Stance on Advocate's Duty

The Supreme Court rejected Siddiquee's argument that he was justified in speaking to the media because Khan had named him in the FIR and was no longer his client. The Court said an advocate's duty of confidentiality does not end merely because the professional relationship has broken down or the client has subsequently become an adversary.

"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 said.

The Court said an advocate who believes he has been falsely accused has other legal remedies, including placing his version before the investigating agency or pursuing a defamation action. However, the Court said an advocate cannot use a television channel to disclose privileged communications with a former client.

"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," the Court said.

The Court held that the finding of professional misconduct on this count was "unassailable" and sufficient to sustain the punishment imposed by the BCI. It therefore dismissed Siddiquee's challenge to the disciplinary order.

Client's Plea for Harsher Punishment Rejected

The Court also rejected Khan's plea seeking a harsher punishment and Rs 2 crore in compensation. It said a person seeking enhancement of a punishment must approach the Court with clean hands. The record showed that Khan and Siddiquee had discussed ways in which the police officer could be "trapped" while the lawyer-client relationship was still continuing.

The Court also noted that Khan herself had appeared before the electronic media on July 28, 2014, and spoken about her case. Further, the police officer against whom she had complained was discharged by the trial court in December 2015, and Khan had not challenged that order.

The Court said Khan had not been fully candid about these facts and therefore could not seek an enlargement of the relief already granted to her. The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed both challenges and imposed costs of Rs 5 lakh each on Siddiquee and Khan, directing that the amount be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)