The Ethics Committee of the Lok Sabha, which inquired into the cash-for-query allegations levelled by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey against Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra, adopted its draft report on Thursday, recommending her expulsion from the 17th Lok Sabha for “unethical conduct” and “serious misdemeanours”.
The report, adopted with six MPs voting in favour and four from the Opposition against it, recommended an “intense, legal, institutional inquiry” by the government in a time-bound manner.
The report now rests with the Lok Sabha Speaker, and will be tabled in Lok Sabha in the upcoming Winter Session set to commence on December 4. With BJP and its allies having a majority in the Lower House, a motion to expel Moitra may be moved.
At the moment though, “nothing happens to Mahua Moitra till the time the recommendations by the Ethics panel is accepted by the House,” constitutional expert and former Secretary General of Lok Sabha PDT Achary, told FinancialExpress.com, adding that the parliamentary committee’s work and that of the anti-corruption ombudsman Lokpal are two aspects to the story.
BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, on whose accusation the ethics panel conducted the probe, has now claimed that Lokpal has ordered a CBI probe into the matter. Notably, there has been no official word from the Lokpal on the issue yet.
“The parliamentary committee’s work is different from the Lokpal’s investigation. Lokpal investigates a criminal case, while that is not a parliamentary committee’s job. They can’t do it. The parliamentary committee was looking into the unethical conduct of Moitra, while a Lokpal will investigate the criminal aspect of her conduct, i.e., the allegations of bribery against her for raising questions in Parliament,” Achary explained.
Bribery is a criminal offence, which is punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and cases under this Act are investigated by the CBI. However, if Lokpal orders any probe, then it will either work with its own mechanisms or engage the CBI, which will investigate the case. The matter then goes to court, which will decide whether she is guilty or not.
“The parliamentary committee investigates the ‘unethical conduct’ aspect, and if she is found guilty, it can recommend the expulsion of the MP,” Achary said.
In an interview to The Indian Express, Moitra admitted that she gave her Parliament login and password details to businessman Darshan Hiranandani but denied taking any cash from him, as alleged by lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai, whom she referred to as a “jilted ex”.
After the Ethics Committee adopted the report on Thursday, Moitra in a phone interview to PTI, said, “Even if they expel me in this Lok Sabha, I will be back in the next Lok Sabha with a bigger mandate. This is a pre-fixed match by a kangaroo court, which is of no surprise or consequence. But the larger message for the country is that for India, it is the death of Parliamentary democracy.”
In case the TMC MP from Krishnagar is expelled from Parliament, Achary said she can challenge the decision in the courts on three principal grounds – unconstitutionality of the decision of the House or the procedure followed by the parliamentary committee, gross illegality and the denial of natural justice.
“For instance, she asked for the cross-examination of the people, which has not been done… Moitra’s allegations that “filthy questions” were being asked by the Ethics panel and the walkout staged by the Opposition MPs… In the meantime though, the report was ready. Therefore, she can cite these examples to say there was a denial of natural justice and so on,” said Achary.
The former Lok Sabha secretary general said that another factor that Moitra can use in her defence is that of the disproportionality of punishment under Article 20. It states that the punishment should be proportionate to the guilt/offence. That is the basic principle under Article 20 of the Constitution. That is a fundamental right.
“So, is sharing of password with someone such a serious offence… because most of the MPs are doing it? They are not writing questions on their own. It is somebody else sitting and writing it, the MPs may not be knowing it,” he said.
He also said that there has been no rule framed by the Lok Sabha or provisions under the Information Technology (IT) Act, which prohibits the sharing of one’s password, a defence cited by the Opposition MPs and Moitra herself.
“Of course, the point is that an MP can engage anybody for his parliamentary work, and can have the assistance of anybody. It is none of the concern of the Parliament. The Parliament comes into the picture only when you are sending something to the Parliament, for example, a question. The Parliament can’t get into the motive of the question. Parliament will look at the question as it is and they will examine whether it conforms to the rules of the questions. Whether the question has a public interest angle in it. That’s it,” he said.
Achary also wondered why the Lokpal came into the picture. “Why did he (Dubey) go to Lokpal? He could have just registered an FIR with the CBI,” he said.
“If you go to the Lokpal, the government’s permission to prosecute is not necessary, otherwise a public servant can be prosecuted only after permission from the government. In case of an MP, the sanctioning authority is the Speaker, who needs to give the permission. But, all this is easy – to take the Speaker’s permission to prosecute.”
In Moitra’s case, Achary pointed out, there is an aspect of corruption, on the presumption that she has taken money from the industrialist. “If that is true, that is a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, so naturally the CBI comes into it. An MP is a public servant, therefore, the CBI can investigate the case,” he added.