The Supreme Court on August 21 affirmed a two-year suspension of an advocate's licence, ruling that attorney-client privilege does not extinguish when the relationship sours. The advocate had disclosed confidential information obtained during representation after the client became an opponent. The Court held this violated Rule 17 of the Bar Council of India Rules and the foundational professional duty of confidentiality, which persists regardless of the subsequent adversarial posture of the former client.

Attorney-client privilege in India is not merely a rule of evidence — it is a constitutional and professional duty rooted in the right to effective legal representation under Article 21 and codified under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Rule 17 of the Bar Council of India Rules under the Advocates Act, 1961.

Section 126 bars an advocate from disclosing, without the client's express consent, any communication made to him in the course of and for the purpose of his employment. Crucially, this protection survives the termination of the retainer. The advocate cannot use confidential information against a former client even if that client subsequently initiates litigation against the advocate.

The Supreme Court's August 2025 ruling crystallises three propositions:
1. The privilege is the client's, not the lawyer's — only the client can waive it.
2. The duty survives relationship breakdown; hostility of the former client does not dissolve the obligation.
3. Breach attracts disciplinary action under the Advocates Act, 1961, including suspension or removal from the rolls.

For CLAT PG, the examiner tests whether candidates distinguish between the evidentiary dimension (Section 126, IEA) and the professional misconduct dimension (BCI Rules). The test the court applies is: was the information obtained during the course of the professional relationship, and did the advocate disclose it without consent? If yes to both, privilege is breached irrespective of motive.