[ad_1]
TRINAMOOL Congress leader Mahua Moitra on Monday moved the Supreme Court against the report of the Ethics Committee of Parliament, recommending her expulsion from the Lok Sabha, finding her guilty of “unethical conduct and contempt of the House for sharing her Lok Sabha credentials ie her email ID and password of the Lok Sabha members’ portal to an unauthorized person and its irrepressible impact on the national security”.
Among the annexures, the report offers details of Moitra’s logins into the members’ portal.
A detailed look at the report, now tabled in the House:
Complainant Jai Anant Dehadrai’s letter
The lawyer , in his complaint to BJP MP Nishikant Dubey on October 14, 2023, said he had overheard telephone conversations between Moitra and her businessman friend Darshan Hiranandani, as she “used an Apple iPhone X model, which had a broken receiver… and hence she would take all her calls on speaker phone – making it possible for anyone around her to hear her conversations.” He claimed that Hiranandani told Moitra to “bring down (Gautam) Adani no matter what”.
Asked whether he had met Hiranandani, Dehadrai said he had not, adding that Moitra “was very particular that she would keep Mr Hiranandani as far away from me as possible”.
On the belief that Dehadrai forwarded the complaint to BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, as he had had spats with Moitra, the lawyer told the Ethics Committee: “I have never met Mr Nishikant Dubey… or ever spoken to him… or messaged him.” He added: “My opinion of Mr Nishikant Dubey is that he is an outstanding and ethical Member of Parliament.”
‘Dog issue’, says Opposition
When Dehadrai deposed before the Ethics Committee, member Danish Ali (since suspended from the BSP), told the chairperson, “This dispute is about a dog. This is about a pet dog. There is an FIR on this. The dispute over a dog has come to the Ethics Committee. We are ashamed to discuss this.” Soon after, another member and now Telangana minister, the Congress’s Uttam Kumar Reddy, said the same.
Congress Puducherry MP Vaithilingam VE also said, “Now our Parliamentary Committee is dealing with a dog matter. That is the fate of our committee.”
Moitra and Dehadrai had a documented dispute over the custody of a dog named Henry.
Bhubaneswar BJP MP Aparajita Sarangi stepped in, asking members not to trivialise the matter. When Ali kept repeating that the matter pertained to a dog, Kaushambi BJP MP and Ethics Committee Chairman Vinod Sonkar muted his mic and said this wouldn’t go on record.
When Ali grilled Dehadrai on things that, he said, were in the affidavit, Sonkar jokingly told Ali, “If everyone does not have your keen memory and everyone has not eaten desi ghee, it is fine that he has said what he remembers and written the rest on a sworn affidavit.”
Moitra’s deposition
In her appearance before the Ethics Committee on November 2, Moitra said that as she came from a land-owning family background and had rich friends, Hiranandani’s wealth was not the reason for their friendship. “I am a banker; most of my friends are very wealthy. I have friends whom I know are 10 times wealthier than Darshan. It makes no difference to me.”
On why she shared the password of the Parliament members’ portal with Hiranandani, Moitra said: “I was talking to Darshan. I said, I am sitting here, my PA is a Bengali speaker. In those days, I never logged in. It (the portal) was not there at all in 2019. So, we had to give the question by hand. I used to find it irritating to write those questions and go and give it every morning at 10 o’clock. I never did it… So I thought I had to get some questions typed in properly.”
Adding that the questions were RTI-able (subjects on which RTI queries can be posed) and did not involve national security, Moitra said: “I told Darshan… now since they have got a portal, can you give me some guy in your office? I will send the question. He types it in because all my chaps or my PAs are Bengali-speaking people in Karimpur. Their English is not good. He said, no problem, send it along and give it to me.”
She added that many LAMPS (Legislative Assistants to Members of Parliament) fellows also type for MPs.
House renovation
About the allegation that Hiranandani funded the renovation of her house, Moitra said, “Before renovation, I wanted to see the Vastu of the house to see which window I could open, which door I could open, and how could I let in more light in my bedroom… I asked Darshan if he could ask one of his architects to give me a drawing… I gave these drawings to the CPWD engineer and (the) contractor renovated the house on government expenditure.”
Nishikant Dubey’s deposition
In context of the BJP MP’s submissions against Moitra, Uttam Reddy asked Dubey if the TMC leader had lodged a complaint on the veracity of his educational qualifications. Dubey replied if the Supreme Court or Moitra was more credible.
The chairman interrupted, saying the matter was over, that it had no relation with the subject, and that the member was trying to insult the witness (Dubey).
Dubey’s conversation with Hiranandani
Asked whether he believed the charges were true, Dubey said he had called Hiranandani once he read Dehadrai’s charges, and that when he was convinced of their veracity, he wrote to Speaker Om Birla. As Dubey argued that only authorised PAs — paid by Parliament for the job – or members themselves could post questions on the members’ portal, the JD(U)’s Giridhari Yadav sought to know what action could be taken if the official PA “sold” the questions.
The BJP’s Sumedhanand Saraswati retorted that when BJP MP Santosh Ahlawat’s PA booked a railway ticket without his authorisation, he was suspended and also fined because he acted without the MP’s permission. Chairman Sonkar referred to an incident when Kalpanath Rai’s PA was booked under TADA.
Saraswati also asked Danish Ali whether he attended a training session when he became MP, as privacy norms were told to MPs in these sessions. Giridhari Yadav said at this point that he had never attended a training session. Ali said rules may be circulated now so that members may be aware of them.
Mahua’s deposition and fireworks
When Chairman Sonkar asked a long question ending with the charge “Sansad mein prashn poochhne ke liye cash sambandhi prakaran ki punaravritti mein aapki kathit roop se sanliptta hai (‘alleged involvement in the context of cash-for-query in Parliament’)”, Moitra asked the meaning of sanliptta. “Involvement,” Sonkar replied. When Sonkar then referred to Dehadrai as ‘jilted-ex’, Moitra asked what it meant. He said she herself had been using it on social media, to which she said things should be clearer here.
As the Chairman again began reading out charges to her, Moitra interrupted saying there were factual inaccuracies. When the Chairman asked her to let him complete, she said she is a woman and he can’t point his finger towards her. When Sonkar asked her to speak, she said the use of the word “ex” was wrong. “Whoever the woman, the Indian woman, whatever her culture – we from Bengal may be more forward and people from UP somewhat conservative — it does not matter… We are talking about 33 per cent reservation. So we have equal rights as men and equal freedoms.”
Moitra then discussed Dehadrai at length, even saying that while members call him a big lawyer, he isn’t a big lawyer and his only identity was that “he was Mahua Moitra’s boyfriend”.
She then spoke at length about the lawyer and the custody of the dog, after which Sonkar asked her whether giving unauthorised access to the members’ portal was okay. Sonkar added that more than the legal angle, the ethical angle was important, and said the members would agree with him on this.
At this point, Giridhari Yadav said, “Aap sahmat mat kahiye, nahin to hamein turant aapatti karni padegi ki hum sahmat nahin hain (Don’t say we agree; else we’ll have to say immediately that we disagree).”
Moitra objected to the Chairman asking about her friendship with Hiranandani and whether she knew his wife. To which Sonkar said she may choose not to answer a question and reply in writing within 24 hours. Asked whether she met Hiranandani in Dubai, she said she did. Yadav intervened to tell her she could check the details and reply later. “You are not her advocate,” Sonkar shot back. Yadav replied she was not understanding Sonkar’s Hindi, to which he quipped Yadav was also not addressing her in English.
“Bihar ka Hindi aur Bengal ka Bangla dono milta julta hai. Aap hamari behen se poochhiye. (Bihar’s Hindi and Bengal’s Bangla are similar; ask my sister),” Yadav said. “That is correct, sir,” Moitra replied.
Asked again by Sonkar how many times she met Hiranandani, Moitra said he is a close friend, and she may have met him a hundred times, or just three.
“Wrong script”
When Sonkar asked how many times Moitra had been abroad, Yadav told him not to ask such questions: “Aap ke paas sawaal galat likh kar aa gaye hain (you have been given wrong questions in writing).” Moitra quipped, “Aap ke paas script hi ghalat aa gayi hai (you have got the wrong script).” Ali said, “Someone has given you a script and as a Chairman you are asking the question. This is not the way.”
Ali used the word “cheer-haran (dishonouring)” for the questions being asked, leading to the BJP’s Sunita Duggal objecting to the use of such words.
Yadav wondered whether the Chair intended members to sit till 10 pm and listen to his questions. He added that members were not ‘workers’ of the Chairman. Sonkar said the meeting would not end like this. Yadav, after having spent four hours in the meeting, retorted that members did not have the full day. When Sonkar said he was in no hurry, Ali quipped that he should then hold another meeting after Diwali.
As the exchange of words continued, Sonkar asked Moitra how many times she went to Dubai and where she stayed. Moitra said she would file a complaint, as “this is no business of the Ethics Committee”.
Members asked for a vote on whether the meeting should continue, and members of the ruling party won, with Sonkar citing rules that the Chairman has two votes, one as a member and the second if there is a tie.
He then asked Moitra where she stayed in Dubai, to which Moitra said that the atmosphere in the meeting was toxic. “Is it toxic? Don’t answer, but where you stayed, who paid the bills, did you get gifts or not…,” Sonkar shot back. Moitra said he could ask her about the specifics in the letter of Dehadrai or the affidavit of Hiranandani, but they had not mentioned any such detail.
Uttam Reddy said the Chairman was asking all the questions and the manner of questioning was “prejudicial”. He added that there was no national security issue, and the word should not be used. Reddy also sought evidence of cash transfer, if any.
Sonkar said Hiranandani’s affidavit included hotel expenses, and again asked Moitra what the expense was and who paid it. Moitra replied that she would not be subjected to such questions. Sonkar said he was warning her as the Chairman, and she retorted that he could throw her out if he wished. Sonkar then asked her if she would offer the call record details of her conversations with Hiranandani, and Moitra replied that she would walk out.
Ali reiterated that the proceedings were like a “cheer-haran of Draupadi” – something Moitra seconded – and then Moitra walked out saying “besharm, behuda (shameless, gross)”. Sonkar said he was placing it on record that Moitra had used these words for the Chair, even as Opposition members walked out of the meeting.
Dissent notes
In his dissent note to the committee report, Danish Ali called the enquiry “a farce and a kangaroo court”. The CPI(M)’s P R Natarajan called it a “fixed match”, Reddy accused the committee of “unseemly haste”, and Vaithilingam and Yadav accused it of “entirely illegal” functioning.
[ad_2]
