Lok Sabha expels Mahua Moitra amid Opp objection and walkout following Ethics Panel’s report on cash-for-query allegations

The motion moved by Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi stated: “This House, having taken note of the first report of the Committee on Ethics on complaint given by Nishikant Dubey MP against Mahua Moitra MP, wherein she has been found 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.”

“Wherein her conduct has further been found to be unbecoming of a member of Parliament for accepting illegal gratification through gifts and other facilities from a businessman to further his interest which is a serious misdemeanour and highly deplorable conduct on her part, accept the recommendations and findings of the committee and resolve that continuance of Mahua Moitra as member of Parliament, member of Lok Sabha as untenable and she may be expelled,” the motion stated.

Reacting sharply to her expulsion, Moitra, speaking to reporters outside the House,  equated the action with hanging by a “kangaroo court” and said a parliamentary panel was being “weaponised” by the government to “force the Opposition into submission”.

“You have assumed the powers of a quasi-judicial authority and imposed a penalty on me for which you have no power to do. You have disregarded due process, proportionality and abused every tenet,” she said.

Moitra was accused of accepting cash to ask questions on behalf of businessman and friend Darshan Hiranandani. In an interview to The Indian Express on October 27, Moitra admitted she gave her Parliament login and password details to Hiranandani but denied taking any cash from him, as alleged by Supreme Court advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai in his complaint to the CBI.

Following her expulsion, the TMC condemned the move and its leader Mamata Banerjee called it “a sad day” and “the betrayal of Parliamentary democracy”.

Earlier, in the House, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, Leader of Congress in Lok Sabha, said, “This Ethics Committee report has been laid on the table after 12 noon. And at 2 pm, the debate has begun… I want to ask: Is it humanly possible to read it within two hours? I request you to grant us three-four days so that we can go through the reports carefully, discuss it within the parties and then come and debate over it properly.”

Demanding that Moitra be given an opportunity to defend herself, Chowdhury said, “Even in a court of law, a man on death row is asked if he has to say anything. If Mahua Moitra has been accused, she should have the right to speak.”

Speaker Om Birla cited precedent and past rulings – of his predecessor Somnath Chatterjee’s in the 2005 cash-for-query matter when Lok Sabha expelled 11 MPs for taking bribes to ask questions –  and did not give Moitra a chance to speak in the House.

As the Opposition pressed with the demand, Birla said, “The precedent is followed. I will read out from the record (on what Chatterjee had ruled when the then Opposition BJP sought an opportunity for the MPs to put their views).”

“I have a copy of the traditions that were followed earlier… Somnath Chatterjee said the members against whom there are accusations are given ample time to speak before the committee. This House has the tradition that the traditions followed by the previous Speakers are followed by the next Speakers,” he said.

Congress MP Manish Tewari said that in his 31-year career as a lawyer he had not argued a case without taking cognizance of its documents. “Heavens would not have fallen if three-four days were given to us. This is a very sensitive matter,” he said.

Tewari raised a few points regarding the procedure of the committee. “Can the procedure of the Ethics Committee override the fundamental principle of natural justice?… not only the accused must get an opportunity to defend herself but also to cross-examine the accuser. No such opportunity was provided,” he said.

He also said that Rule 316 D of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business stated that the Ethics Committee can only recommend that a certain person is guilty, but the Ethics Committee cannot recommend the sentence.

“That power lies with this House. The recommendation of the Ethics Committee is fundamentally flawed,” he said on the recommendation that Moitra be expelled from the House.

“All parties have issued a three-line whip. In matters of the Ethics Committee, can a party ask its members to vote in a particular way? Can a whip even be issued? This is like directing a judge to decide a case in a particular manner. This is a complete travesty of justice. This House should be adjourned and all whips should be withdrawn. We are not sitting as ordinary members, rather we are sitting here as judges,” Tewari said.

The Speaker took exception to this and said, “This is Parliament, not court. I am not a judge, I am Speaker. The decision will be taken by the House. Do not make wrong arguments.”

Joshi intervened to say the party had only issued a whip for everyone to be present, not vote in a particular manner.

JD(U)’s Girdhari Yadav, who is a member of the Ethics Committee, told the Speaker that many MPs get their questions framed by others.

“Even I do not remember my password, my PA knows it. I have not asked any questions, thinking God knows what will happen. I never frame my own questions. Many MPs do not frame their questions. I do not know how to run a computer. Yeh Manusmriti mei likha gaya hai ki sabke liye alag kanoon hoga. Wahi Manusmriti BJP wale laagu karna chahate hain,” he said.

Brila stepped in, and said: “I request all MPs to frame their questions themselves and put it up. No one else is allowed to do that. Serious action can be taken against you in such a scenario. You are saying this on record. I will not let the dignity of this House be tarnished.”

BJP MPs Heena Gavit and Aparajita Sarangi defended the action against Moitra.

Sarangi, who is also a member of the committee, said, “There were three meetings and she was given an opportunity to speak in all. But she misbehaved and used unparliamentary language. She walked out. She did not put forth her side, we wanted to hear.”