An Advocate’s Duty Of Loyalty And Client Confidentiality Survives Termination Of His Employment: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Court said an advocate is statutorily barred from disclosing communications received from or on behalf of a client, or the advice given upon them, without the client’s express consent.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an advocate’s uncompromising duty of loyalty and client confidentiality is perpetual and continues even after the termination of employment, while dismissing a petition filed by a former legal head concerning matters connected with his previous employer.
The Court was hearing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking production of records concerning beneficiaries under a rehabilitation and resettlement policy and directions to the authorities to act upon the petitioner’s complaint.
The petition was initially listed before a Single Bench and was subsequently placed before the Division Bench after being treated as a public interest litigation.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia observed: “An advocate owes an uncompromising duty of loyalty and confidentiality. An advocate is statutorily barred from disclosing communications made to them in the course and for the purpose of their employment by or on behalf of their client, as well as the advice given thereon, unless there is express consent. This obligation does not cease upon termination of employment—it remains perpetual.”
The Bench added: “The petitioner, being an ex-employee, is not supposed to highlight the matters relating to his employer after leaving the service. His conduct is highly objectionable and reprehensible.”
Advocate Abhay Dubey appeared for the petitioner. Deputy Advocate General Vivek Sharma, appearing on behalf of the Advocate General, represented the State authorities.
Background
The petitioner had worked as the Legal Head of Sasan Power Limited and was responsible for land-acquisition matters relating to its power-plant area. After leaving the company, he filed a complaint alleging irregularities in a subsequent list of beneficiaries prepared under the rehabilitation and resettlement policy.
The petitioner alleged that the number of beneficiaries had increased by 300 when compared with an earlier list. He further alleged that persons earlier shown as minors or ineligible had subsequently been treated as eligible and extended monetary benefits through collusion between government authorities and company officials.
The petitioner submitted that the Collector had forwarded his complaint to the Sub-Divisional Officer for appropriate action, but no further action had been taken. He accordingly sought production of the beneficiary records and a time-bound enquiry or action report upon his complaint.
The State opposed the petition and sought its dismissal.
Court’s Observations
Petitioner Had A Personal Interest In The Dispute
The Court observed that the petitioner had projected himself as the complainant against the alleged irregularities and had approached the Court seeking action upon his own complaint.
The Bench stated: “We cannot believe that the petitioner has no personal interest in this matter, as he has already projected himself as a complainant to highlight so-called illegality and irregularity in the preparation of the list of R&R Policy. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot be permitted to bring his cause by way of public interest litigation as he himself was the legal head in the office of respondent No.5 and was dealing with land acquisition matters.”
The Court consequently held that the petitioner’s cause could not be pursued through a public interest litigation merely because the petition had earlier been directed to be treated as one.
Confidentiality Obligation Survived Termination Of Employment
The Court observed that the petitioner had acquired facts and material while working as the company’s Legal Head and handling its land-acquisition matters. The Bench held that he was required to maintain the secrecy of information gathered during that employment.
The Court further noted that the petitioner was subsequently practising as an advocate and was therefore expected to understand the obligation of confidentiality between an advocate and client.
The Bench held that an advocate could not disclose communications made by or on behalf of a client during and for the purpose of professional employment, or advice given upon those communications, without express consent. The Court emphasised that this obligation remained perpetual and did not end with the termination of employment.
The Court accordingly found the petitioner’s conduct in highlighting matters relating to his former employer after leaving its service to be objectionable and reprehensible.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the writ petition as being devoid of substance.
The Court imposed costs of ₹20,000 upon the petitioner and directed that the amount be deposited with the Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority.
Cause Title: Dr Krishna Kumar Tripathi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:75279)