Court Holds Former Employee Cannot Use Confidential Information to File Public Interest Litigation; Petition Dismissed with Costs for Breach of Professional Ethics
Jabalpur, September 18, 2026 - The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a recent judgment delivered by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia, has dismissed a writ petition filed by Dr. Krishna Kumar Tripathi, a former Legal Head of Sasan Power Limited. The petitioner had challenged the alleged irregularities and inclusion of ineligible persons in the list of beneficiaries under the Rehabilitation & Resettlement (R&R) Policy maintained by the respondents, including government authorities and the company.
Dr. Tripathi, who left his position in August 2016 and is now a practising advocate, sought directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) of Singrauli to produce records related to the beneficiaries, amounts disbursed, and to initiate action on his complaint regarding these alleged irregularities. The petitioner claimed to have knowledge of discrepancies based on records he handled during his tenure as Legal Head.
Initially, the Single Judge considered the petition to be in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and transferred it to the Division Bench for further consideration. Upon hearing, the Court observed that the petitioner had projected himself as a complainant with a personal interest, disqualifying the petition from being entertained as a PIL.
Significantly, the Court emphasized the professional ethics binding on advocates, particularly the duty of loyalty, confidentiality, and secrecy towards former employers and clients. It underscored that the petitioner, having transitioned from an employee to a practising advocate, was under a continuing statutory obligation not to disclose or misuse confidential information acquired during his employment without express consent. This obligation survives even after termination of employment.
The judgment observed that the petitioner's conduct in raising allegations against his former employer was "highly objectionable and reprehensible," breaching the principles of confidentiality and professional ethics. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as devoid of substance, and the petitioner was directed to pay costs amounting to Rs. 20,000 to the Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority.
This ruling reinforces the legal position that former employees and advocates cannot leverage confidential information obtained during their tenure to challenge former clients or employers in a manner inconsistent with their duty of loyalty and confidentiality. It further delineates the limitations on filing PILs where the petitioner has a personal stake in the matter.
Bottom Line:
Public Interest Litigation - Former Legal Head/Legal Advisor of company cannot maintain writ petition/PIL based on information acquired during employment to question alleged irregularities in beneficiaries list under R&R Policy - Ex-employee and practising advocate is bound by duty of loyalty, confidentiality and secrecy towards former client/employer - Petition dismissed with costs.
Statutory provision(s):
Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226; Advocates Act, 1961 (Professional Ethics and Confidentiality)
