In a recent development at the Calcutta High Court, Justice Amrita Sinha raised concerns of a potential conflict of interest involving West Bengal Advocate General, Kishore Datta. The issue emerged in the context of the ongoing ‘cash for school job’ case, a high-profile legal matter that has garnered significant attention.
Justice Amrita Sinha pointed out that Datta had previously represented Sujay Krishna Bhadra, a prime accused in the same case, and therefore, should not represent the state government in this matter. This situation, as noted by Justice Sinha, could lead to a conflict of interest, compromising the transparency and integrity of the legal proceedings.
Legal experts have expressed that the potential conflict had been a subject of concern since Datta took on Bhadra’s representation while simultaneously holding the position of Advocate General. A senior counsel at the Calcutta High Court, preferring anonymity, remarked,
“That happened on Wednesday,”
indicating that the issue had finally come to the forefront.
During the proceedings, Justice Amrita Sinha also addressed the prolonged nature of the investigation in the school job case, highlighting the growing uncertainty for the candidates involved. She urged the state government to proactively seek a resolution, suggesting that discussions be initiated between the state’s counsel and the petitioners’ counsels.
Furthermore, Justice Amrita Sinha proposed a potential solution for the issue of filling up ninety-five school job posts, which had been vacated following revelations of illegal appointments. She suggested conducting further exams, with a consideration to condone the age limits of candidates who were eligible in 2014. However, this suggestion was not accepted by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education (WBBPE).
Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, representing the petitioners, proposed an alternative approach. He suggested that the appointments could be made from the existing merit list and waiting list, pending the production of these lists by the state.
The next hearing on this matter is scheduled for February 6, with Justice Amrita Sinha directing all parties to be present in court. This case continues to be a focal point in the ongoing discourse about legal ethics and the administration of justice in India, highlighting the critical balance between legal representation and the avoidance of conflicts of interest.