The Supreme Court docket at the moment (August 21) strongly disapproved of the conduct of Mumbai-based Advocate Rizwan Siddiquee and actress Rehana Khan, alias Rozlyn Khan, for losing greater than 11 years of the judiciary only for the sake of their repute.
In view of the conduct of each side, the Court docket additionally imposed prices. The appellant and the respondent had been every directed to pay ₹5 lakh to the Supreme Court docket Authorized Providers Committee inside 4 weeks, with the Court docket directing that the quantity can be recovered in accordance with legislation within the occasion of non-payment.
To briefly state, the difficulty arose after Khan accused Siddiquee {of professional} misconduct underneath Part 35 of the Advocates Act, alleging that he breached the fiduciary relationship by disclosing confidential consumer info to the media, issuing a public discover with out consent, and making derogatory remarks about his consumer public. Khan made a criticism to the Bar Council of India, which initiated a disciplinary continuing towards the advocate.
The committee discovered Siddiquee responsible {of professional} misconduct and suspended his license for two years, and he was ordered to pay Rs. 3 lakhs to the complainant and Rs. 2 lakh to the BCI. Each challenged the BCI’s order earlier than the Excessive Court docket after which earlier than the Supreme Court docket.
Neither occasion approached the Court docket with clear fingers’
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta noticed that each events suppressed supplies and did not strategy the Court docket with clear fingers.
The Supreme Court docket took a crucial view of the way through which each side had carried out the litigation. The Bench famous that the events had withheld related materials and that the report disclosed situations of suppression, embellishment and claims developed after the very fact.
The Court docket emphasised that judicial proceedings can’t be used as a way for events to settle private scores, restore reputations broken by their very own conduct, or acquire a bonus from disputes through which they themselves had performed a considerable position.
‘Eleven years’ of judicial time consumed
The Bench expressed explicit concern over the size of the litigation. It famous that the dispute had occupied the eye of the Bar Council of India, the Excessive Court docket and the Supreme Court docket for about 11 years.
The Court docket burdened that judicial time is a restricted public useful resource and that the time consumed by this dispute may in any other case have been dedicated to litigants whose instances required real and well timed judicial intervention.
The Bench consequently recorded its sturdy disapproval of the conduct of each events, holding that every had contributed considerably to the controversy and its extended litigation.
Court docket’s observations
It noticed: “It’s generally stated that in a trial the events already know the reality and it’s the choose on the trial. The remark is a sobering one and the current case illustrates why. Earlier than us are two litigants, every of who’ve approached the courtroom within the assured expectation of vindication, and neither of whom has been candid with it. Each truth of consequence has needed to be prised out of a report through which suppression, embellishment and afterthought are the frequent forex of each side. The equipment of justice is just not a facility positioned on the disposal of events to settle scores, to salvage reputations they themselves imperilled, or to extract benefit from an issue of their very own making. We are saying on the outset, giving our causes in what follows, that neither the appellant nor the respondents go away this courtroom with credit score.
We’re left with the observations with which we started: every of those events has come to us complaining of a improper, and every has been the writer of a very good a part of it. Between them, they’ve occupied the time of the Bar Council of India, a Excessive Court docket and this Court docket for eleven years. That point belonged to different litigants ready for launch they genuinely want. We report our sturdy disapproval of the conduct of each. In view of the above observations, the impugned order dated eleventh August 2025 is upheld. civil attraction no. 12256/ 2025, civil attraction no. 7959/2026 and switch case no. 30/ 2026 are all dismissed.
In view of the conduct of every occasion, we deem it match to impose prices. The appellant and the respondent shall every pay Rs. 5 lac to be deposited to the Supreme Court docket Authorized Providers Committee inside 4 weeks, failing which it shall be recovered in accordance with legislation. The pending purposes, if any, stand disposed of.”
After the judgment was pronounced, one counsel requested that the names of the events could also be redacted. Nevertheless, Justice Nath refused and orally remarked that when advocates have been combating throughout on social media, there isn’t any want for his or her names to be redacted in a Court docket’s order. “Each of you’ve got been placing every part on social media, you gave that interview.”
Additionally from the judgment – Advocate Cannot Disclose Client’s Confidential Information Even If She Turns Adversary : Supreme Court Upholds Lawyers’ Suspension
Case Particulars: REHANA KHAN v RIZWAN SIDDHIQUEE|C.A. No. 12256/2025 & RIZWAN SIDDIQUEE v REHANA KHAN|C.A. No. 7959/2026
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 846
Click here to download judgment
Look:
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Rehana Khan Petitioner/appellant-in-person Mr. Adit Subramaniam Pujari, Adv. Ms. Karishma Maria, AOR Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, Adv. Mr. Harshwardhan Pushkin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bhavesh Seth, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Caveator-in-person, AOR Mr. P V Yogeswaran, Adv. * M/S. Ram Sankar & Co, AOR Mr. Adit Subramaniam Pujari, Adv. Ms. Karishma Maria, AOR Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, Adv. Mr. Harshwardhan Pushkin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bhavesh Seth, Adv.
