Supreme Court Criticizes Both Parties in Prolonged Legal Dispute
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India expressed strong disapproval towards an actress and her former lawyer for their handling of an 11-year legal dispute. The case, which traversed through the Bar Council of India, Bombay High Court, and eventually the Supreme Court, resulted in the dismissal of cross proceedings initiated by both parties. The bench, composed of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and Vijay Bishnoi, found that both the actress, Rehana Khan, and the lawyer, Rizwan Siddiquee, contributed significantly to the controversy and failed to approach the court in good faith.
The court imposed a penalty of ₹5 lakh on each party, payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, for wasting judicial resources. The judgement highlighted the lack of candor from both litigants, noting, “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.” The court emphasized that neither party was candid in their approach, each seeking vindication without transparency.
Saga of Allegations and Media Spectacle
The dispute originated in 2013 when Khan engaged Siddiquee as her legal representative. She alleged that a senior Mumbai police officer attempted to sexually assault her during a family dispute consultation. A legal notice sent by Siddiquee’s office in 2014, which Khan claimed was unauthorized, became a point of contention. Siddiquee asserted the notice was sent based on Khan’s own instructions.
In the subsequent turn of events, Khan filed a First Information Report (FIR) against the police officer, also implicating Siddiquee as acting under the officer’s influence. This led to a media frenzy, with both Khan and Siddiquee making television appearances to discuss the case. The situation escalated when Siddiquee’s office was searched, and the proceedings were televised, turning the legal battle into a public spectacle.
Professional Misconduct and Supreme Court Judgement
In 2015, Khan accused Siddiquee of professional misconduct via a complaint to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. In August 2025, the Bar Council of India’s Disciplinary Committee found Siddiquee guilty on several counts, including sending an unauthorized notice and disclosing confidential information that led to Khan’s identification in the media. He was suspended from practice for two years and fined ₹5 lakh, to be shared between Khan and the welfare fund.
More Read
Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court, with Khan seeking harsher penalties and Siddiquee contesting the misconduct findings. The Supreme Court dismissed Siddiquee’s defense, noting he had been adequately heard by the Disciplinary Committee. The court upheld the misconduct findings, particularly criticizing Siddiquee’s decision to disclose confidential information in a media interview.
Regarding Khan’s appeal for a stricter punishment, the court noted her lack of forthrightness, highlighting discussions with Siddiquee about entrapment tactics against the police officer. The court also pointed out that Khan had voluntarily engaged with the media and never contested the discharge of the accused officer by a trial court in 2015.
Conclusion and Court’s Directives
The Supreme Court concluded that both parties were responsible for the prolonged litigation, which unnecessarily occupied the judiciary’s time. The court ordered both Khan and Siddiquee to pay ₹5 lakh each to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks. Despite a counsel’s request for name redaction from the order, the court firmly denied it, emphasizing transparency due to the public nature of the dispute.
