The Supreme Court denied Mahua Moitra temporary relief on Wednesday, January 3, regarding her removal from the Lok Sabha in the Cash for Questions case. Following the presentation of the ethics committee report to the legislature on December 8, 2023, the former TMC MP was removed from office.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mahua Moitra’s attorney, asked for a temporary remedy so that his client might attend the parliament’s budgetary session. The Lok Sabha secretariat was given 14 days to submit a response to the court’s decision to dismiss the plea. The following hearing is scheduled for March 11, 2024.
Judges Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta pointed out that the Court’s jurisdiction to review the Lok Sabha’s acts will be a crucial factor to take into account. The petitioner, if any, must submit a rejoinder within three weeks of the court’s order for a response to be filed within two weeks.
Instead of denying that she gave industrialist Darshan Hiranandani her parliamentary login credentials, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who was speaking on behalf of Mahua Moitra, justified the practice by comparing it to MPs assigning tasks to their staff. He said that, as there is no law prohibiting MPs from disclosing their login information and OTPs to third parties, this does not constitute a rule infringement.
“There is the only ground on which she is expelled, which is sharing her login credentials,” Abhishek Manu Singhvi stated in his argument. Second, note that merely being able to log in to the portal does not equate to using it, as an extra authentication step in the form of an OTP is required. Third, there isn’t a code of conduct in place that governs sharing passwords or access, but she was expelled for breaking a hacking guideline.
It’s interesting to note that Singhvi also asserted that Jai Anant Dehadrai, the counsel, concealed Mahua Moitra’s personal relationship with him. Remarkably, Dehadrai, Moitra’s “jilted ex,” exposed her by revealing that Hiranandani was using her parliamentary login credentials from Dubai to post questions in the Lok Sabha on Mahua Moitra’s behalf.
“The ethics committee arrived at findings without adhering to natural justice principles,” he declared. I am not permitted to cross-examine two private individuals who have filed a complaint. The purported briber is not called in. The committee’s conclusions are incoherent. The complainant, Mr. Jai, conceals the fact that she had sexual contact with him. He said she was being asked to submit questions by Mr. Hiranandani. According to Mr. Hiranandani, he was under pressure to give in. Is it impossible for a Member of Parliament to assign her work? For a moment, picture Hiranandani as her secretary. You can now declare that he isn’t her secretary.
“So you are accepting that you shared the OTP with Hiranandani?” Justice Khanna said in response.
Furthermore, according to Abhishek Manu Singhvi, “a motion was moved based on the committee’s report.” Members were not permitted to review the report, which spanned 439 pages. On December 8, at 12:00, it was tabled without prior sharing. Deliberations begin at 2:00 p.m. The first supply begins at twelve, and the last comes in after the argument has begun. Even Your Lordships, allow us time to browse the counters and other items.
Lordships may not give notice, according to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the Lok Sabha Secretariat when the court requested a response. Please don’t provide notice. The state’s supreme body makes evidence-based decisions regarding internal discipline. If any, what is the extent of judicial review? Senior Advocate Maninder Singh represented MP Nishikant Dubey, the person who filed the complaint against Moitra.
The court declared in its decision that “multiple issues have been raised.” At this point, we would like to remain silent on any matter. One of the concerns is this court’s jurisdiction and the authority of judicial review. Permit the initial respondent to submit a response within a fortnight. If any, rejoin in three weeks. In the week starting on March 11, relist.
Mahuagate: There are claims that TMC MP Mahua Moitra received “cash for query.”
According to the Ethics Committee’s recommendations in a cash-for-query case, the Lok Sabha expelled Mahua Moitra, the MP for the Trinamool Congress, on December 8. Shortly after the report of the Ethics Committee was presented to the Lok Sabha, Moitra was dismissed.
The Indian political scene was rocked on October 14 when BJP MP Nishkant Dubey wrote to the ethics committee, requesting an investigation into TMC MP Mahua Moitra on the “Cash for Query” controversy. He based his suit on a letter from Supreme Court attorney Jai Anant Dehadrai, who claimed that businessman Darshan Hiranandani benefits directly or indirectly from the majority of the questions posed by the TMC MP in the Lok Sabha. An additional layer of complexity to Mahuagate was created when Dehadrai accused Moitra of “kidnapping” his pet dog Henry.
Moitra launched a case against Dubey and Dehadrai but never admitted collecting gifts. Interestingly, she has also been accused of sharing her Lok Sabha credentials with Hiranandani so he can post questions independently. According to reports, Hiranandani has changed his stance on the matter and provided an affidavit implying that Moitra’s accusations are accurate.
