Madhya Pradesh High Court rules advocate's duty of client confidentiality is perpetual

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that an advocate's statutory duty to maintain client confidentiality is perpetual and does not end when professional service or employment terminates.

A division bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia dismissed a petition filed by Dr Krishna Kumar Tripathi, former legal head of Sasan Power Ltd, describing his conduct as "highly objectionable and reprehensible". The court ordered the petitioner to pay costs of Rs 20,000 to the M.P. State Legal Services Authority.

Advocate privilege and former employers

The petitioner had previously managed land acquisition matters for Sasan Power Ltd in Singrauli. After leaving the company, he filed a writ petition alleging irregularities in the implementation of the state's Resettlement and Rehabilitation policy.

He contended that a revised beneficiary list contained discrepancies compared to the initial record approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Singrauli. He alleged that roughly 300 additional beneficiaries were added, including individuals recorded as minors in the initial documentation who were presented as adults in the later version to secure monetary payouts.

High Court ruling on confidentiality

The court declined to examine the underlying claims regarding the rehabilitation policy, ruling instead on the professional conduct and statutory duties of legal practitioners.

"An advocate owes an uncompromising duty of loyalty and confidentiality," the bench held in the judgment authored by Justice Rusia. "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 rejected the petitioner's argument that the court should treat the matter as a Public Interest Litigation because he had no personal financial stake. The court observed that an in-house lawyer who gathered information during employment cannot reframe that privileged material to bring litigation against a former employer.

The court emphasized that its dismissal was based on the breach of professional obligation and that it made no findings regarding the factual accuracy of the rehabilitation beneficiary lists.