© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Lok Sabha on Friday expelled Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra from Parliament in a cash-for-query case. Earlier in the day, the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee submitted a report recommending Moitra’s expulsion from the House.
In October, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, based on a complaint by Supreme Court lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai, alleged that the Krishnagar MP had asked questions in Parliament in exchange for cash and gifts from businessman Darshan Hiranandani whose business interests conflicted with those of industrialist Gautam Adani. In an affidavit to the Ethics Committee on October 19, Hiranandani claimed that Moitra provided him with her login ID and password for the Lok Sabha members’ website so that he could “post questions” directly “on her behalf when required”.
Earlier on Friday, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, the Congress’s floor leader in the House, cited the length of the report and requested Speaker Om Birla to allow MPs three to four days to go through the report. Meanwhile, the BJP issued a whip for all of its members to be present.
Here is what the report says:
🔴 Finding her guilty of “unethical conduct” and “contempt of the House” for sharing her user ID and password with “unauthorised persons” — and saying this affected national security — the committee recommended her expulsion as a member of the House.
🔴 Given her “objectionable”, “unethical”, “heinous”, and “criminal” conduct, the ethics panel recommended an “intense, legal and institutional” inquiry by the government in a time-bound manner.
🔴 Saying that it did not have the technical wherewithal to investigate any money trail — or cash benefits that Moitra may have taken from Hiranandani in return for asking questions against billionaire Gautam Adani — the committee recommended that the government investigate this in a time-bound manner.
🔴 Alleging that he “cunningly twisted” the intent of questions posed to Moitra by committee chairperson Vinod Sonkar, the report recommended that BSP MP Kunwar Danish Ali be admonished for “conduct unbecoming of an MP”.
🔴 Given that it senses a rise in unruly behaviour by MPs, which was seen on November 2 on TV when Moitra, Ali, and others stormed out of a meeting of the committee, the panel requested the Lok Sabha Speaker to frame a new “set of rules” to contain unruly behaviour of MPs.
🔴 According to the 104-page report, between January 1, 2019, and September 30, 2023, Moitra visited the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on four occasions allegedly for her meetings with Hiranandani — she said her visits were not aimed at meeting him, though some meetings did happen — but there were no logins on these dates. This, said the committee, showed that someone else had been logging in on her behalf from Dubai. It said the IP address for all 47 logins from Dubai was the same.
🔴 The Ministry of Home Affairs, the panel said, “explicitly informed” that several documents that could be accessed on the members’ portal were not public files. These included draft Bills circulated in advance to members. Sharing passwords, it said, could lead to these drafts falling into the hands of elements inimical to the country. The committee noted that the Jammu and Kashmir Delimitation Bill, 2019, was circulated in advance. This showed the dangers of possible leakages if passwords are shared with unauthorised persons. The committee said compromised passwords “could render the system vulnerable to severe cyber attacks and potentially disable the system entirely, thereby crippling the functioning of the Parliament of India”. It added that “such elements could plant material into the system that could impact national security by creating false documents or fake narratives”.
🔴 The committee has argued that the sharing of material with Hiranandani, who holds an Indian passport but resides in the UAE and also has relatives who are foreign nationals, created a “serious risk of leakage of sensitive material to foreign agencies”.
🔴 The report said if the login credentials of MPs were given to an “unauthorised person”, it “enables the person to access “important” documents that may “interfere in the affairs of the parliament by manipulating parliamentary information to serve his/her commercial interests and/for other ulterior motives”.
🔴 The committee has concluded that of the 61 questions posed by Moitra on the portal, 50 were with the intent of “protecting or perpetuating business interests” of Hiranandani.
🔴 The committee cited Section 66 read with Section 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which prescribes punishment for sharing user ID and password in a “fraudulent and dishonest manner” with imprisonment for a term up to three years, a fine up to Rs. 5-lakh, or both.
🔴 The report said that at the November 2 meeting, which Moitra stormed out of after accusing the committee of asking personal and unethical questions, the MP tried to “digress” to her “personal relationship” with Dehadrai when questioned.
🔴 Regarding the Hiranandani affidavit where he conceded the charges made by Dehadrai, the report said Hiranandani signed the affidavit in the presence of Urmil Asiwal, Vice Consul (Attestation) on October 20, 2023, and that both the seal and signature of Asiwal are genuine. Opposition members had wondered why Hiranandani had not been summoned to India by the committee to examine him as he had just sent a letter.
Moitra said in her evidence that there were two sets of passwords — one to her official mail and the other to the member’s portal used for posting questions and travel reimbursements. She said she shared only the latter password as her official PAs were Bengali speakers who weren’t good in English. So, she claimed, she shared the password with Hiranandani’s assistant to post questions, and that this, too, could happen only when she approved the OTP.
Moitra said that all questions she posted were her own; they were just posted by Hiranandani’s staff. However, the Committee report mentioned the conflict of business interests between Adani and Hiranandani.
Moitra said she did take some gifts and travel facilities from Hiranandani, a “friend”, but there was no cash involved.
Dubey recalled that in 2005, 10 MPs were expelled from the House in nine days for a mere Rs 10,000 after a sting operation where no question was asked and no real company existed on behalf of which questions were meant to be asked. He said in this case, questions were asked on behalf of a real company in return for favours.
He recalled that MP H G Mudgal got thrown out of the Lok Sabha in 1951 when Jawaharlal Nehru was the prime minister because he had links with the Mumbai bullion. Mudgal had to resign to preempt an expulsion motion moved against him by Nehru himself. Mudgal had been accused of taking Rs 1000 each on two occasions to ask questions on behalf of the Bullion Merchants Association.
On the issue that login passwords were shared with PAs anyway, Dubey said PAs, like MPs, were paid their salaries by Parliament and that their I-card was also made after police verification just like that of the MPs. He added the charge of someone else operating the system from afar was different. He said the risk was grave as the entire Government of India was on the National Informatics Centre (NIC).
