Kolkata lawyer's matrimony ad sparks debate over use of Judge Amrita Sinha's name for "value"

A 21-year-old lawyer from Kolkata has posted a matrimonial advertisement that includes a reference to Kolkata High Court Judge Amrita Sinha. In the ad, the lawyer mentions her professional background and personal values, stating that she worked as a trainee under Judge Sinha. The ad emphasizes her career in law, as well as her commitment to ethics, integrity, and professionalism. The young lawyer specifies that she is seeking a life partner who shares these values, and her advertisement focuses on these principles rather than physical appearance or family background, a trend becoming increasingly common in modern matrimonial ads.

Judge Amrita Sinha is a respected figure in the legal community, particularly known for her involvement in several significant cases. She has been in the spotlight due to her role in the investigation of recruitment scams and her handling of the controversial “lips and bounces” case, among others. Judge Sinha has earned recognition for her focus on legal integrity, ethics, and transparency in her rulings. Her reputation for impartiality and commitment to justice has made her a prominent figure in both legal circles and public discourse.

The young lawyer’s ad mentions her time working as a trainee under Judge Sinha, confirming that she gained practical legal experience while working closely with the judge. According to available sources, the lawyer trained under Judge Sinha for a period of time, contributing to her legal expertise. The advertisement stresses the lawyer’s own values and career achievements, with a particular emphasis on her ethical stance and professional journey.

While the ad has generated attention due to the mention of Judge Sinha, it primarily highlights the lawyer’s own professional qualifications and values. There has been no public statement from Judge Sinha regarding the ad, and it is unclear whether she has been directly involved in the lawyer’s matrimonial pursuits. The reference to the judge appears to be a mention of the professional relationship between the two, rather than an endorsement or an attempt to leverage the judge's public image.