Advocate Cannot Use Information Received In Confidence Against The Client If She Becomes An Adversary : SC
"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 machinery of justice is not a facility to settle scores to salvage reputations they have themselves imperiled or to extract advantage from a controversy of their own making.", observed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath.
The appellant has raised to the Bar Council,
that the respondent has performed professional misconduct under S.35 of Advocates
Act 1961.
She alleged that the Additional Commissioner of Police had tried to sexually assault her. Then, the appellant engaged the respondent as her counsel in 2013. A notice has been issued without her consent by the respondent, while the respondent counter-claimed that he have received her oral consent. The appellant alleged that respondent was entrusted with confidential information and instead of acting in her interest, acted against it. He gave interview to press, publicly characterized her complaint as fake case of rape and accused her of seeking to sensationalize the matter.
The appellant alleged that the respondent had disclosed
confidentiality of the client by releasing the complainant’s identification in
the media and made derogatory public remarks concerning her, each constituted
professional misconduct under S.35 of Advocates Act 1961.
Though the Senior Police Official had been given clean chit in the matter, still since the advocate was entrusted with client-attorney confidentiality, the matter reached to the Bar Council of India.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council investigated the claims and after
due consideration, ordered to remove the advocates’ name from the roll of
advocates, banned him to appear before any court for a period of two years
and imposed a fine of Rs. 3 lakhs payable to the appellant and a fine of 2
lakhs payable to Welfare Board of BCI.
Aggrieved by the order of Disciplinary Committee, the respondent reached to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court looked upon the question before the Disciplinary committee, "Can an advocate release the confidential and personal information, private
conversations and messaging exchanges to a press or broadcasted to news media
via interview?"
The Court said 'No'. An advocate’s duty is not conditional upon the client’s continued good behavior towards the advocate. An advocate cannot use information received in confidence against the client and the fact that she has since became an adversary makes no difference.
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 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 false case of rape while accusing her of seeking
publicity.
But the court said both the appellant and the
respondent has prolonged this legal battle of them for eleven years wasting the
time of BCI, the High Court and this Court. That time belonged to other
litigants waiting for reliefs they genuinely need. What these proceedings
disclose is a controversy which these two litigants have between them
manufactures, prolonged and brought to the highest court of this country.
Hence the court expressed concern to such conduct and put to each of the litigants, a cost of Rs. 5 Lakhs being paid to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks of this judgment.
Comments