2026 INSC 907 Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025 a/w connected matters 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12256 OF 2025

REHANA KHAN ...APPELLANT(S)

VS.

RIZWAN SIDDHIQUEE ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO. 30 OF 2026

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7959 OF 2026 @

DIARY NO. 7049 OF 2026

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. It is sometimes said that in a trial the parties already

know the truth, and that it is the judge who is on trial.

The observation is a sobering one, and the present case

illustrates why. Before us are two litigants, each of

whom has approached this Court in the confident

expectation of vindication, and neither of whom has

been candid with it. Every fact of consequence has had

to be prised out of a record in which suppression,

embellishment and afterthought are the common

currency of both sides. The machinery of justice is not

a facility placed at the disposal of parties to settle

scores, to salvage reputations they have themselves

Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025 a/w connected matters 2

imperilled, or to extract advantage from a controversy

of their own making. We say at the outset, and give our

reasons in what follows, that neither the appellant nor

the respondent leaves this Court with credit.

2. These matters arise out of the judgment and order

dated 11th August 2025 passed by the Disciplinary

Committee of the Bar Council of India in B.C.I. Tr. Case

No. 177 of 2018.

3. They are cross proceedings. For convenience, we refer

to Ms. Rehana Khan, who is the appellant in Civil

Appeal No. 12256 of 2025 and the respondent in T.C.(C)

No. 30 of 2026 and in Civil Appeal No. 7959 of 2026, as

the appellant; and to Mr. Rizwan Siddique, advocate, as

the respondent.

4. The appellant, who was the complainant before the

Disciplinary Committee, has preferred Civil Appeal No.

12256 of 2025 seeking enhancement of the

punishment imposed on the respondent. The

respondent, for his part, first invoked the writ

jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay

under Article 226 of the Constitution, in Writ Petition

No. 11765 of 2025, challenging the same order. By

order dated 27th November 2025, this Court directed

that the records of the writ petition be transmitted to

this Court and that the matters be heard together. The

writ petition, on such transfer, stands registered as

T.C.(C) No. 30 of 2026. The respondent has additionally

Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025 a/w connected matters 3

preferred Civil Appeal No. 7959 of 2026 against the

same order.

5. By order dated 27th November 2025, this Court also

allowed I.A. No. 247450 of 2025 and impleaded the

Secretary, Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, as a

party.

6. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are:

6.1. The respondent is an advocate enrolled on the roll of

the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. It is

common ground that the appellant engaged the

respondent as her counsel and that the engagement

subsisted for some part of the years 2013 and 2014.

6.2. The appellant's case is that in 2013, following an

altercation with her brother, she visited the Malad

Police Station and there came into contact with a

senior police official then posted as Additional

Commissioner of Police, Northern Regional Division,

Mumbai. She alleges that the official, under the guise

of assisting her, kept in contact with her and

thereafter attempted to sexually assault her. It is on

this account that she says she approached the

respondent, and in the course of that engagement

shared with him confidential details of her personal

life and material in her possession bearing on the

allegations.

6.3. A legal notice was addressed to the said police official

through the respondent's office. According to the

Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025 a/w connected matters 4

appellant, the notice dated 15th July 2014, was

issued without her authority. According to the

respondent, the notice was drawn from a draft

supplied by the appellant herself, prepared by an

advocate previously engaged by her, was first

dispatched on 8th July 2014 and was re-sent on 15th

July 2014, in each case on her instructions.

6.4. On 24th July 2014, the appellant lodged a First

Information Report against the police official under

Sections 376(2), 376C, 354 and 354D of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 . In that FIR, the respondent was

named as a person acting under the influence of the

said official.

6.5. On 28th July 2014, the appellant appeared before the

electronic media with her face covered and spoke

about her case.

6.6. On or about 4th August 2014, the respondent's

statement was recorded by the Women's Atrocities

Prevention Cell, Crime Branch, Byculla, in

connection with the appellant's case. On 5th August

2014, an interview given by the respondent was

broadcast on the television channels 'Aaj Tak' and

'Zee News'. Footage of conversations between the

appellant and the respondent, and material said to

be in the nature of messaging exchanges between

them, also came to be broadcast.

Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025 a/w connected matters 5

6.7. On 13th August 2014, the premises of the

respondent's office were searched by the investigating

agency. That search was broadcast on television the

following day.

6.8. On 26th February 2015, the appellant filed a

complaint against the respondent under Section 35

of the Advocates Act, 1961 before the Bar Council of

Maharashtra and Goa, alleging professional

misconduct. It came to be registered as Disciplinary

Case No. 64 of 2015.

6.9. By order dated 4th December 2015, the police official

was discharged by the Trial Court in the proceedings

arising out of the FIR of 24th July 2014. That order

was not carried further by the appellant and has

attained finality.

6.10. The complaint under the Advocates Act, was taken

up by Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of

India as B.C.I. Tr. Case No. 177 of 2018.

6.11. Before the Disciplinary Committee, the respondent

denied the allegations in his written statement and

maintained that he had at all times acted within the

scope of his professional duty, and that the notice of

15th July 2014 had been issued with the appellant's

oral consent.

6.12. By the impugned order dated 11th August 2025, the

Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India

held that the unauthorised issuance of the notice

Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025 a/w connected matters 6

dated 15th July 2014, the disclosure of confidential

information leading to the complainant's

identification in the media, and the making of

derogatory public remarks concerning her, each

constituted professional misconduct under Section

35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. It directed that the

respondent's name be removed from the roll of

advocates maintained by the Bar Council of

Maharashtra and Goa for a period of two years from

the date of the order, during which he was restrained

from appearing before any co urt, tribunal or

authority in India and from holding himself out as an

advocate. It further imposed a fine of Rs. 3,00,000/-

(Rupees Three Lakhs only) payable to the appellant,

and directed a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees

Two Lakhs only) to be deposited in the Welfare Fund

of the Bar Council of India.

6.13. Both sides are aggrieved. The appellant says the

punishment is inadequate. The respondent says

there was no misconduct at all.

7. We have heard Ms. Rehana Khan, the appellant, who

appears in person; Mr. Adit S. Pujari, learned counsel

for the respondent; and Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, learned

counsel for the Bar Council of India.

8. Submissions on behalf of the appellant:

8.1. The appellant submits that the respondent was

entrusted with confidential and sensitive information

Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025 a/w connected matters 7

concerning her and, instead of acting in her interest,

acted against it. She says he entered into undisclosed

coordination with the opposing party and ultimately

put confidential material into the public domain.

8.2. She submits that the engagement of the respondent

as her counsel is not in dispute, and that the

relationship of trust which such engagement creates

carries heightened professional and ethical

obligations. Those obligations, she says, were

breached when the respondent gave an interview to

the media concerning her, when personal information

passed to him in confidence found its way to the

press, and when he publicly characterised her

complaint as a false case of rape and accused her of

seeking to sensationalise the matter.

8.3. She contends that the record shows that during the

period of his engagement the respondent remained in

continuous telephonic contact with the opposing

party and met that party in person on 18th July

2014, which demonstrates collusion and bad faith.

8.4. She submits that the respondent has attacked her

character not only in public but before the Bar

Council of India, and in the course of argument

before this Court.

8.5. The harm, she says, is irreversible. The disclosures

have affected her dignity, her privacy, her mental

peace and her standing in society.

Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025 a/w connected matters 8

8.6. On that footing she seeks enhancement of the

punishment as a measure of accountability

commensurate with the misconduct found proved.

She prays that the respondent be permanently

removed from the roll of advocates and that he be

directed to pay her compen sation of Rs.

2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore only) for the

trauma she has suffered.

9. Submissions on behalf of the respondent:

9.1. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the

appellant engaged his services between 2012 and

2014. In 2014, she approached him for the limited

purpose of dispatching a legal notice complaining of

dereliction of duty on the part of a police officer who,

it was said, was harassing her in connection with an

investigation into an escort service being run in her

name. The draft of that notice, prepared by an

advocate previously engaged by her, was furnished

by the appellant herself. It was dispatched from the

respondent's office on 8th July 2014 and re-sent on

15th July 2014.

9.2. It is submitted that the respondent advised the

appellant in clear terms that her grievance against

the police official did not disclose an offence of rape

or any other sexual offence, and that at highest a case

of non-performance of duty was made out. He denies

that the appellant ever approached him for the

Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025 a/w connected matters 9

purpose of lodging an FIR against the official. His

case is that the appellant wished to appear on a

reality television programme and was seeking to

sensationalise the matter in order to generate

publicity and advance her career.

9.3. It is submitted that it was only after this advice was

tendered that the appellant lodged the FIR of 24th

July 2014 alleging rape, in which the respondent was

named as being under the influence of the police

official.

9.4. The consequence, it is submitted, fell upon the

respondent. The FIR and its allegations were widely

reported. He was pursued and harassed by media

personnel after being named, resulting in grave

professional embarrassment. His office premises

were searched on 13th August 2014 and the search

was broadcast the next day.

9.5. As to the events of 4th and 5th August 2014, the

respondent denies that he disclosed the appellant's

identity to the media. He points out that the appellant

had herself appeared before the media on 28th July

2014, albeit with her face covered, and had spoken of

the details of her case. He submits that at no point

did he voluntarily disclose any confidential

information or her identity, and that the video

material broadcast by the news channels was

Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025 a/w connected matters 10

material he had furnished to the police, which he did

not release to any journalist.

9.6. As to the interview carried on 'Aaj Tak', the

respondent submits that the appellant was

represented in that broadcast by one Ms. Chitra

Salunke, advocate, and that his own participation

was for the sole purpose of answering the public

accusations against him. He further submits that by

that date he was no longer the appellant's counsel.

9.7. It is further submitted that the impugned order came

to be passed ex parte by the Disciplinary Committee

without service of notice of the final hearing at the

respondent's correct and updated address. Such

non-service is said to strike at the root of the

principles of fair hearing and to vitiate the entire

disciplinary proceedings.

9.8. On these submissions, it is urged that the impugned

order proceeds upon a complaint in which the

appellant has deliberately suppressed material facts,

that no professional misconduct is made out, and

that the order of the Disciplinary Committee ought to

be set aside.

10. Submissions on behalf of the Bar Council of India:

10.1. Learned counsel for the Bar Council of India supports

the impugned order and submits that the findings

recorded by the Disciplinary Committee are borne out

by the material on record and that the punishment

Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025 a/w connected matters 11

imposed is proportionate to the misconduct

established.

11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

arguments advanced and the material on record.

12. The record in these matters makes for compelling

reading. Litigation of this kind holds a certain

fascination, and we do not pretend otherwise. But a

court is not an auditorium, and the drama of a case is

no measure of its merit. Stripped of its theatre, what

these proceedings disclose is a controversy which two

litigants have between them manufactured, prolonged

and brought to the highest court in the country, each

in the hope that we would be sufficiently diverted by the

spectacle to overlook their own part in creating it. We

have not been.

13. Two questions arise. The first, raised by the

respondent, is whether the findings of professional

misconduct are sustainable at all. The second, raised

by the appellant, is whether the punishment imposed

is so inadequate as to call for enhancement.

14. The respondent has urged that he was denied a

reasonable opportunity of being heard by the

Disciplinary Committee, the impugned order having

been passed ex parte and without service of notice of

the final hearing at his correct and updated address.

We have examined the record with care, and the ground

does not survive scrutiny. The respondent entered

Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025 a/w connected matters 12

appearance and he filed a written statement refuting

the allegations. He was represented by counsel, and he

participated in the recording of evidence. It is clear that

he knew, from the institution of the disciplinary case,

down to the passing of the impugned order in August

2025, that proceedings were pending against him and

what those proceedings alleged. A party who has been

present throughout cannot be heard to say that he was

absent, especially one who is himself an advocate. The

ground is flimsy and is, in our view, an afterthought,

taken because no better one was available

15. That brings us to the substance. Whatever be the

disputes about the notice of 15th July 2014, and there

is much on the record which is unclear about how that

notice came to be issued and on whose instructions,

one fact stands out and is not in dispute. On 5th

August 2014 the respondent went on television. He

gave an interview which was broadcast on 'Aaj Tak' and

'Zee News'. In that interview he spoke of his

relationship with the appellant, of what she had told

him and of what had passed between them.

Conversations between the two, recorded and

thereafter released, were played alongside. Material

said to consist of their messaging exchanges was also

broadcast.

16. The complaint before the Disciplinary Committee

expressly mentions the press interview and the

Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025 a/w connected matters 13

respondent's written statement does not deny that he

gave it. His answer is one of justification. In these

circumstances, the Disciplinary Committee was bound,

to proceed on the footing that the interview was given.

17. The justification offered is that the appellant had by

then named the respondent in the FIR of 24th July

2014, that he was no longer her counsel, that he was

being pursued by the media, and that he spoke only to

answer the accusations made against him. Thi s

justification does not suffice. 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.

18. An advocate who considers himself falsely accused is

not without remedies. He may place his version before

the investigating agency, as indeed the respondent did

on 4th August 2014 or he may sue in defamation. 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.

19. The finding of professional misconduct on this count is

therefore unassailable, and it is sufficient to sustain the

punishment imposed. We find no ground to interfere

Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025 a/w connected matters 14

with the impugned order. T.C.(C) No. 30 of 2026 and

Civil Appeal No. 7959 of 2026 are dismissed.

20. As 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.

21. We are left with the observation with which we began.

Each of these parties has come to us complaining of a

wrong, and each has been the author of a good part of

it. Between them they have occupied the time of the Bar

Council of India, a High Court and this Court for eleven

Civil Appeal No. 12256 of 2025 a/w connected matters 15

years. That time belonged to other litigants, waiting for

reliefs they genuinely need. We record our strong

disapproval of the conduct of both.

22. In view of the above observations, the impugned order

dated 11th August 2025 is upheld. Civil Appeal No.

12256 of 2025, Civil Appeal No. 7959 of 2026 and

T.C.(C) No. 30 of 2026 are all dismissed.

23. In view of the conduct of each party, we find it fit to

impose costs. The appellant and the respondent shall

each pay costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs

only) 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.

24. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

…………………………….. J.

[VIKRAM NATH ]

…………………………….. J.

[SANDEEP MEHTA ]

…………………………….. J.

[VIJAY BISHNOI]

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 21, 2026