Seetha v. Sharvananda and Others – sllr 1989 volume 1 page 094

In the case between SEETHA (Petitioner) and A.E. Sharvananda, among others (Respondents), the court addressed whether the Attorney-General or officers within the Attorney-General’s Department may represent a public officer in proceedings where potential conflicts of interest arise. The primary consideration centered around the propriety of Senior State Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st Respondent in habeas corpus proceedings, with reference to the duties owed under the Constitution and specific statutes. The court determined that the application objecting to such representation should be refused, holding that the mere potential for conflict does not preclude the Attorney-General’s representatives from acting for a public officer alleged to have acted in their official capacity. This r