Advocate’s Duty of Loyalty and Client Confidentiality Survives Termination of Employment: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an advocate’s duty to maintain client confidentiality and professional loyalty continues even after the termination of employment. Dismissing a petition filed by a former legal head of Sasan Power Limited, the court emphasised that lawyers cannot disclose confidential communications or professional advice obtained during their employment without the client’s express consent, subject to applicable legal exceptions.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia delivered the ruling on September 18, 2026, in a petition filed by Dr Krishna Kumar Tripathi, who had previously served as the company’s legal head. The court dismissed his plea and imposed costs of ₹20,000, finding the petition devoid of substance.
The dispute arose from allegations of irregularities in the preparation and verification of beneficiary lists under a Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) Policy associated with the Sasan Power plant area in Singrauli district. Tripathi claimed that a subsequent list contained ineligible beneficiaries and that certain individuals who had been minors in an earlier list were subsequently shown as adults, allegedly enabling them to receive monetary benefits.
According to the petitioner, the number of beneficiaries had increased by approximately 300 in the revised list. He alleged that these discrepancies had resulted in the improper disbursement of public funds and sought judicial intervention to obtain the relevant records and secure an inquiry into the alleged irregularities.
Tripathi stated that he had complained to the Collector, Singrauli, seeking action on the matter. The complaint was reportedly forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Officer for appropriate action, but the petitioner claimed that no effective steps had been taken. He subsequently approached the High Court seeking directions for the production of beneficiary records, details of amounts disbursed and an investigation into the alleged discrepancies.
The petition was initially placed before a single judge, who observed that it should be registered as a public interest litigation because the petitioner claimed to have no personal interest in the matter. The case was subsequently placed before the division bench for consideration.
The bench questioned the petitioner’s claim that he had no personal interest in the proceedings, noting that he had previously worked as the company’s legal head and had handled land acquisition matters connected with the project. The court held that he could not pursue the matter as a public interest litigant in the circumstances presented before it.
In its observations on professional ethics, the court underscored the continuing nature of an advocate’s obligation to protect confidential client information. It stated that communications made to an advocate during employment, as well as professional advice provided in that capacity, remain protected even after the employment relationship ends, unless disclosure is expressly authorised or permitted by law.
The bench observed that an advocate owes an uncompromising duty of loyalty and confidentiality. It further remarked that the petitioner, having served as the company’s legal head, was expected to preserve the secrecy of information and material obtained during his professional engagement. The court described his conduct in raising matters relating to his former employer as “highly objectionable and reprehensible”.
The High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to deposit ₹20,000 in costs with the Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority.
Importantly, the court’s decision did not establish whether the allegations concerning the beneficiary lists were factually correct. The ruling focused on the petitioner’s standing to pursue the matter as a public interest litigation and the professional obligations arising from his former role as the company’s legal head.
The judgment reinforces the importance of confidentiality in the advocate-client relationship, including in-house legal engagements. It highlights that leaving an organisation does not automatically release an advocate from the duty to protect confidential communications and professional advice obtained during employment. The ruling also underscores the need to distinguish between information that can lawfully be disclosed in the public interest and material protected by professional confidentiality obligations.
