Ex-Legal Head Cannot Expose Former Employer’s Affairs, Duty Of Confidentiality Is Perpetual: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a former legal head of Sasan Power Limited seeking an inquiry into alleged irregularities in Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) beneficiary lists, holding that a lawyer cannot turn against a former employer using information gathered during that employment.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia imposed costs of Rs 20,000 on the petitioner, Dr Krishna Kumar Tripathi, observing that his conduct was “highly objectionable and reprehensible.”

The petitioner, now a practising advocate, had worked as Legal Head at Sasan Power Limited, where he was in charge of land acquisition for the power plant area. He left the job on 30 August 2016.

Through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, he sought directions to the Collector and the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Singrauli, to produce records of R&R beneficiaries, the amounts disbursed and the list verified by the SDO. He also wanted an action or enquiry report on his complaint dated 12 August 2024 within a fixed time.

The petitioner claimed that a beneficiary list signed by the SDO during his tenure named both eligible and ineligible persons. A fresh list was later prepared, he alleged, in which ineligible persons were shortlisted and individuals who were minors in the earlier list were shown as adults to extend them monetary benefits. According to him, the number of beneficiaries rose by 300.

He said he learnt of this through a reply under the Right to Information Act dated 26 December 2024, which also showed that the Collector had forwarded his complaint to the SDO on 28 October 2024. Even after six months, he said, no action followed.

The matter was first listed before a Single Judge. On 28 April 2025, noting the submission that the petitioner had no personal interest, the Single Judge observed that it ought to have been registered as a Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner then applied on 7 May 2025 for it to be treated as a PIL, and the issue was sent to the Division Bench.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Abhay Dubey argued that the figures in the original and later lists did not tally, calling a jump of 300 beneficiaries “practically impossible.” He submitted that this showed collusion between the Collector, the SDO and Sasan Power Limited, causing loss to the public exchequer.

Deputy Advocate General Vivek Sharma, appearing for the State, opposed the petition and sought its dismissal.

The bench was unconvinced that the petitioner had no personal interest. “We cannot believe that the petitioner has no personal interest in this matter, as he has already projected himself as a complainant,” the court said.

It went further, holding that the petitioner could not bring his cause as a public interest litigation at all. He was himself the legal head in the company’s office and had dealt with land acquisition matters. He was, the bench said, “required to maintain secrecy of facts and material which he had gathered” while working there.

Turning to his duties as an advocate, the court was firm. “An advocate owes an uncompromising duty of loyalty and confidentiality,” the bench observed, adding that an advocate is statutorily barred from disclosing communications made in the course of employment, unless there is express consent.

On whether this duty ends once the relationship ends, the court was categorical. “This obligation does not cease upon termination of employment, it remains perpetual,” the order states. An ex-employee, it added, is “not supposed to highlight the matters relating to his employer after leaving the service.”

Concluding that the petition was “devoid of substance,” the court dismissed it and directed the petitioner to deposit the costs with the M.P. State Legal Services Authority.

The order does not examine the merits of the allegations against the officials or the company. It rests on his personal interest, earlier role and the duty of confidentiality.

Case Title: Dr Krishna Kumar Tripathi vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Judgment Date: September 18, 2026

Bench: Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia