The Supreme Court has upheld disciplinary action against an advocate for professional misconduct arising from the disclosure of confidential communications with a former client during television interviews, while simultaneously refusing to enhance the punishment sought by the complainant. 

The bench of  Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi has observed that an advocate cannot use information received from a client in confidence against that client, even after the professional relationship has ended.

The case arose from a professional relationship between the complainant and the advocate during 2013-2014. According to the record, the complainant had engaged the advocate as her counsel and had shared confidential details concerning her personal circumstances and allegations involving a senior police official. A legal notice concerning the police official was subsequently issued through the advocate’s office, though the parties disputed whether the notice had been authorised by the client.

Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026

The dispute escalated after the complainant lodged an FIR against the police official on July 24, 2014. The advocate was also named in the FIR as allegedly acting under the influence of the police official. Shortly thereafter, the advocate’s statement was recorded by the investigating authorities, and on August 5, 2014, he gave interviews that were broadcast on television news channels. Conversations and material relating to his interactions with the complainant were also broadcast.

The advocate’s office was subsequently searched by the investigating agency, with the search also receiving television coverage. In February 2015, the complainant filed a disciplinary complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, alleging professional misconduct.

The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, by order found that the advocate had committed professional misconduct on multiple counts. These included the unauthorised issuance of the legal notice, disclosure of confidential information resulting in the complainant’s identification in the media, and derogatory public remarks concerning her.

The disciplinary authority directed that the advocate’s name be removed from the roll of advocates maintained by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for two years. During that period, he was restrained from appearing before courts, tribunals or authorities in India and from holding himself out as an advocate.

The disciplinary order additionally directed payment of Rs. 3 lakh to the complainant and Rs. 2 lakh to the Welfare Fund of the Bar Council of India.

Both sides challenged the order. The complainant sought enhancement of the punishment, including permanent removal from the rolls and compensation of Rs. 2 crore, while the advocate challenged the finding of misconduct itself.

The Supreme Court identified two central questions: first, whether the finding of professional misconduct against the advocate could be sustained; and second, whether the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was so inadequate that it required enhancement.

The advocate argued that the disciplinary proceedings were procedurally defective because the final hearing notice had allegedly not been served at his correct and updated address. He also denied disclosing confidential information and maintained that his television appearance was made only to respond to allegations publicly levelled against him.

The Supreme Court rejected the procedural objection. It noted that the advocate had entered an appearance, filed a written statement, was represented by counsel and participated in the recording of evidence. According to the Court, he had been aware of the disciplinary proceedings and the allegations against him throughout.

The most significant part of the judgment concerns the continuing duty of confidentiality owed by an advocate to a client.

The Court found it undisputed that the advocate had appeared on television on August 5, 2014, where he spoke about his relationship with the complainant, what she had told him and matters that had passed between them. Recorded conversations and messaging material were also broadcast alongside the interview.

Rejecting the advocate’s justification, the Supreme Court made it clear that professional confidentiality does not disappear merely because the advocate-client relationship has subsequently deteriorated.

The Court held that an advocate cannot use information received in confidence against a client, and the fact that the client later becomes an adversary does not alter that obligation.

The Court further observed that an advocate who believes that he has been falsely accused has legitimate legal remedies. He can place his version before the investigating agency or pursue a defamation action. What he cannot do is take his grievance to a television channel and disclose privileged communications, play recorded conversations with a former client, or publicly characterise the client’s complaint in a manner that breaches the confidentiality owed to her.

On this aspect, the Supreme Court found the disciplinary finding to be fully sustainable. It held that the professional misconduct established on the basis of the television interview alone was sufficient to sustain the punishment imposed by the Bar Council of India.

The Court therefore dismissed the advocate’s connected proceedings challenging the disciplinary action and refused to interfere with the two-year restriction imposed upon him.

While the Court upheld the misconduct finding, it declined the complainant’s request for a more severe punishment.

The Supreme Court emphasised that a party seeking enhancement of relief must approach the Court with clean hands. On examination of the record, the Bench found that the complainant herself had not disclosed certain relevant aspects of the dispute with sufficient candour.

The Court noted, among other things, that material exchanges relied upon by the complainant indicated discussions with the advocate concerning the manner in which the police official might be trapped. It also noted that she had voluntarily appeared before the electronic media on July 28, 2014 and spoken about her case, despite subsequently complaining that the matter had been made public.

The Court further took note of the fact that the police official had been discharged by the Trial Court on December 4, 2015, and that the discharge order had not been challenged.

In these circumstances, the Court refused to enlarge the relief already granted by the disciplinary authority.

The judgment also contains unusually strong observations concerning the manner in which the litigation was conducted.

The Court said that both parties had contributed substantially to the controversy and had brought the dispute through the Bar Council of India, the High Court and ultimately the Supreme Court over a period of eleven years.

The Bench expressed strong disapproval of the conduct of both parties, observing that judicial time consumed in such prolonged litigation belonged to other litigants who were waiting for genuine relief.

In view of the conduct of both parties, the Supreme Court imposed costs of Rs. 5 lakh each on the complainant and the advocate.

The amounts are to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks, failing which they are to be recovered in accordance with law.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Supreme Court Modifies 3-Year Practice Rule for Civil Judge Recruitment