An advocate’s duty of client confidentiality does not end when the engagement ends, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held, calling a former company legal head’s plea over a rehabilitation list “highly objectionable and reprehensible”.
Jabalpur: A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed, with costs of Rs 20,000, a writ petition filed by a practising advocate who had earlier served as legal head of Sasan Power Ltd, holding that an advocate’s obligation to keep client communications and advice confidential remains perpetual and does not cease on termination of employment [Dr Krishna Kumar Tripathi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others].
The Bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia passed the order on September 18, 2026, with the judgment authored by Justice Rusia.
The petition and its background
The petitioner said he was legal head at Sasan Power Ltd, in charge of land acquisition for the power plant area, until he left the job. He alleged that during his tenure a list of beneficiaries under the Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) Policy had been signed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Singrauli, naming eligible and ineligible persons. According to him, a later verified list contained about 300 more beneficiaries, including persons who were minors in the original list but were shown as adults. He alleged collusion between the district authorities and the company causing loss to the public exchequer. These allegations were the petitioner’s and were not tested or decided by the Court.
The petitioner said he learnt of the discrepancy through information obtained under the RTI Act in December 2024. He had made a complaint to the Collector, Singrauli, on August 12, 2024, which the Collector forwarded to the SDO on October 28, 2024 for action. He alleged that no action was taken for over six months, and sought production of the beneficiary records and a time-bound enquiry report, or at least a decision on his complaint.
The petition was first listed before a Single Judge, who observed on April 28, 2025 that, as the petitioner had no personal interest, it ought to have been registered as a public interest litigation. The petitioner then asked for it to be treated as a PIL, and it was placed before the Division Bench.
The Court’s reasoning
The Bench first rejected the claim that the petitioner had no personal interest. It said it could not believe he had none, as he had projected himself as a complainant highlighting illegality in the preparation of the R&R list, and that he could not bring his cause as a PIL when he himself had been legal head dealing with land acquisition matters.
It then addressed the duty owed by a lawyer and by a former employee:
“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 Court observed that the petitioner, as an ex-employee, was required to maintain secrecy of the facts and material gathered while working with the company, and was not supposed to highlight matters relating to his former employer after leaving service. It described his conduct as “highly objectionable and reprehensible”.
The directions
The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of substance. The petitioner was directed to deposit costs of Rs 20,000 with the M.P. State Legal Services Authority. The Court did not examine the correctness of the beneficiary lists, and nothing in the order is a finding on the allegations about the R&R Policy.
Why the order matters
The order ties two ideas together. One is the settled position that a lawyer’s duty to keep a client’s communications confidential survives the end of the engagement. The other is that a person who gathered information as in-house counsel cannot readily turn it into a public interest petition against the former employer.
For advocates working in-house, the practical message is that grievances arising from privileged material must be routed carefully, since a court may treat the petitioner as an interested complainant and not as a public-spirited litigant.
Case Title: Dr Krishna Kumar Tripathi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [WP-14704-2025]
Bench: Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia, Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur
Date of Order: September 18, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Abhay Dubey for the petitioner; Deputy Advocate General Vivek Sharma for the State