Supreme Court slams actress, lawyer for prolonging 11-year dispute; imposes ₹5 lakh costs on both

The Supreme Court on Friday strongly criticised an actress and a lawyer for the manner in which they had pursued a dispute for 11 years across the Bar Council of India, the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court [Rehana Khan v. Rizwan Siddhiquee].

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and Vijay Bishnoi dismissed the cross proceedings arising from the dispute saying both had contributed to the controversy and neither had approached the Court candidly.

“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 have approached this court in the confident expectation of vindication, and neither of whom has been candid with it," the Court noted.

It then imposed costs of ₹5 lakh each on the actress, Rehana Khan, and advocate Rizwan Siddiquee, payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee for wasting the court's time.

Following the pronouncement of the judgement in open court, a counsel requested the court to redact the parties' names from the order.

The Court rejected the request.

“Why? What kind of a request is this? No need to. The world must know. There’s nothing to be redacted here. They have been openly fighting on all social media platforms and you want their names to be redacted?” the Bench remarked.

The dispute traces back to 2013, when Khan engaged Siddiquee as her lawyer. She alleged that around this time, a senior Mumbai police officer, whom she’d approached over a family dispute, attempted to sexually assault her.

A legal notice was sent to the officer through Siddiquee’s office in July 2014. Khan claimed this notice was sent without her authorisation; Siddiquee maintained it was based on her own instructions and a draft she had herself provided.

Later that month, Khan filed an FIR against the police officer alleging rape, in which she also named Siddiquee as someone acting under the officer’s influence.

What followed became a media spectacle. Khan appeared before television cameras, her face covered, to speak about her case. Days later, Siddiquee gave his own television interview on news channels, during which recordings of his conversations with Khan, along with alleged message exchanges between them, were broadcast. His office was searched by investigators soon after, and that search too was televised.

In 2015, Khan filed a complaint against Siddiquee with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, accusing him of professional misconduct.

The Bar Council of India’s Disciplinary Committee eventually held, in August 2025, that Siddiquee had committed misconduct on three counts: sending the unauthorised notice, disclosing confidential information that led to Khan’s identification in the media, and making derogatory public remarks about her.

It suspended him from practice for two years and fined him ₹3 lakh, payable to Khan, along with a further ₹2 lakh to the Bar Council’s welfare fund.

Both sides challenged this order before the Supreme Court, Khan seeking a harsher punishment including Siddiquee’s permanent disbarment and ₹2 crore in compensation, and Siddiquee seeking to have the finding of misconduct overturned entirely.

The top Court first rejected Siddiquee’s defence that he had never been properly heard by the Disciplinary Committee. The Court noted that he had filed a written response, was represented by a counsel and participated throughout the proceedings.

On the merits of his case, the Court found that Siddiquee’s television interview alone was enough to sustain the finding of misconduct against him regardless of the disputes surrounding the notice itself. It rejected his argument that he was merely defending himself after being named in Khan’s FIR.

“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 held.

It added that a lawyer who feels falsely accused has proper remedies available to him, such as approaching investigators with his version or filing a defamation suit, but going on television to disclose privileged conversations was not among them.

On Khan’s plea for a harsher sentence, the Court held that she too had not been forthright. It noted that the records suggested she and Siddiquee had, while he was still her lawyer, discussed ways to entrap the police officer, conduct which went beyond simply seeking legal advice.

The Court also pointed out that Khan herself had voluntarily spoken to the media about her case, and that the police officer she had accused had been discharged by a trial court in 2015, an order she never challenged.

“Having been less than candid about each of these matters, she cannot ask us to enlarge a relief granted to her,” the Court held while dismissing her appeal.

The Court then deprecated both parties for the prolonged litigation across three forums.

“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 years. That time belonged to other litigants waiting for reliefs they genuinely need.” it said.

It directed Khan and Siddiquee to each pay ₹5 lakh in costs to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.

Following the pronouncement of the judgement in open court, a counsel requested the court to redact the parties' names from the order.

The Court rejected the request.

“Why? What kind of a request is this? No need to. The world must know. There’s nothing to be redacted here. They have been openly fighting on all social media platforms and you want their names to be redacted?” the Bench remarked.

[Read Judgment]