Mahua Moitra appears before ethics panel: What's happened in the case so far?

Mahua Moitra is set to appear before the parliamentary ethics committee today in the cash for query row.The TMC MP had asked for the ethics committee to grant her a further extension and appear on 5 November, but her request was denied.Moitra, who has vowed to ‘demolish the charges’ against her, also said she wants to examine businessman Darshan Hiranandani.But what’s happened in the case thus far? And how serious are the charges?Let’s take a closer look:What’s happened in the case thus far?As per News18, the row kicked off on 14 October when Supreme Court lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai asked the Central Bureau of Investigation to file a First Information Report against Moitra on charges of corruption and money laundering.It is to be noted that Dehadrai is said to be an estranged partner of Moitra.They have had a months-long bitter feud over the custody of their pet dog.Moitra has filed multiple police complaints against Dehadrai over the past few months for alleged criminal trespass, theft, vulgar messages and abuse.Then, on 15 October, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey – with whom Moitra has had several spats over the years – claimed that Dehdrai “shared irrefutable evidence of bribes exchanged” between Moitra and a businessman “to ask questions in Parliament”.Dubey accused Moitra of receiving cash and gifts from businessman Darshan Hiranandani to ask questions in Parliament about the Adani Group and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.Dubey also wrote a letter to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla asking that an inquiry committee be formed to investigate the charges against Moitra and that she be suspended from Parliament.Dubey in his letter made mention of the 2005 Raja Ram Pal cash for query scandal in which the membership 11 MPs was suspended the recommendations of an inquiry committee within 23 days of its constitution.[caption id="attachment_13332322" align="alignnone" width="640"] BJP MP Nishikant Dubey has long been an adversary of Mahua Moitra. ANI[/caption]

Dubey argued that Moitra should similarly be suspended from the House.

Dubey claimed that Moitra through her attacks on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah had crafted a ‘clever façade’ over the past few years – making references to the Adani Group while giving the impression that she was against the government.A fiery Moitra immediately hit back at Dubey while tagging the Lok Sabha Speaker.She also took aim at the Adani group: “Also welcome CBI enquiry into my alleged money laundering right after they finish investigating Adani’s offshore money trail, over invoicing, benami accounts. Adani may use BJP agencies to browbeat competition & buy airports but just try doing it with me,” Moitra concluded.Dubey also wrote to Telecom and Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw.

He urged that Moitra’s IP addresses and login credentials for the House be investigated.

In the letter to Vaishnaw, Dubey urged him to take the allegations against Moitra with “utmost seriousness” and initiate an investigation to ascertain the IP addresses of all login credentials of the TMC leader’s Lok Sabha account and determine whether there were any instances in which her account was accessed at a location where she was not present.“The alleged sharing of Smt. Moitra’s Lok Sabha credentials with an external entity poses a direct threat to national security,” the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader claimed.Dubey also said the allegation that the Krishnanagar MP gave Darshan Hiranandani and the Hiranandani conglomerate access to her login credentials for the Lok Sabha website so that they could utilise it for their own personal gain “is possibly the most damning and grave of all the charges that are being made against her”.“If the claims made above are found to be accurate, this constitutes a serious criminal breach of trust as well as a violation of India’s national security because it would give unauthorised individuals access to government websites that may contain classified information,” he said.Dubey urged the minister to determine whether there were any instances in which Moitra’s Lok Sabha account was accessed at a location where she was not present.“Any attempt by a Member of Parliament to compromise the sanctity of our democratic temple by accepting monetary or other types of remunerative benefits in exchange for asking questions the benefit of a business house ought to be thwarted as quickly as possible and an investigation must be carried out and completed as promptly,” NDTV quoted Dubey as saying in his letter to Vaishnaw.Moitra responded to Dubey’s letter by saying that PAs, assistants, interns and large teams carry out the work of MPs.

Moitra then asked Vaishnaw to release the details of the locations and login credentials of all the MPs with Call Data Records (CDRs).

Moitra on 17 October then sent a slew of defamation notices to Dubey, Dehadrai and several media houses.The defamation notice said Moitra recently questioned Dubey’s educational qualifications and his election affidavit claims – which caused a ‘rattled’ Dubey to respond with such false claims.It also stated that Moitra was close friends with Dehadrai but that they had a falling out.The notice claimed that Dehadrai approached journalists to publish fake stories on Moitra but he was unable to get them to do so.Dehadrai then approached the BJP and Dubey who “did not even bother to conduct any due diligence of any kind to establish the veracity of the allegations,” the notice stated.The notice demanded an apology from both Dubey and Dehadrai and that the media houses take down any stories about Moitra.On 18 October, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla referred the charges against Moitra to the Ethics Committee headed by BJP member Vinod Kumar Sonkar.Then, on 19 October came a twist in the tale when businessman Darshan Hirandani abruptly turned approver against Moitra.Darshan, the son of Niranjan Hiranandani, said he had access to Moitra’s login – which he used to ask questions of the government.News18 quoted Darshan as saying in an affidavit that they met numerous times and would often stay in touch.“She shared with me her email ID as a Member of Parliament, so that I could send her information, and she could raise the questions in the Parliament. I went along with her proposal… Certain information was shared with me, based on which I continued to draft and post questions using her Parliamentary login whenever needed,”  Darshan stated in the affidavit.“Many a times I felt that she was taking undue advantage of me and pressurising me to do things I didn’t want to, but I had no choice, because of the aforementioned reasons,” Darshan added.

As per Hindustan Times, Moitra responded by claiming that the “PMO had held a gun to his head”.

“The PMO held a proverbial gun to Darshan and his father's heads and gave them 20 minutes to sign this letter sent to them. They were threatened with a total shut down of all their businesses,” she claimed in a statement.“The affidavit is on white paper and not on official letterhead or notarised. Why would one of India's most respected/ educated businessman sign a letter like this on white paper unless a gun was put to his head to do it?” Moitra added.[caption id="attachment_13332342" align="alignnone" width="640"] Darshan Hiranandani in a twist to the tale turned approver against Mahua Moitra. News18[/caption]On 20 October, Moitra’s lawyer Gopal Sankaranarayanan  abruptly quit the defamation case after being chided by the judge during the hearing.As per NDTV, the senior advocate withdrew from the case citing a ‘conflict of interest’.Sankaranarayanan withdrew himself from the matter after the court was informed by advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai that he was contacted by Sankaranarayanan over phone on Thursday night for withdrawing his complaint to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader.Sankaranarayanan said that Dehadrai had instructed him in the past, and that is why he approached him.He also said that he told his client, Moitra, that Dehadrai was a member of the Bar and he has earlier assisted him in a case so let him speak to the latter to which she agreed.Justice Sachin Datta said he was “appalled” and added that since Sankaranarayanan tried to play the role of a mediator, is he still eligible to appear in the matter? “It’s something that you need to answer yourself. It’s your call,” the judge said, prompting Sankaranarayanan to withdraw himself from the case.The court listed the matter for further hearing on 31 October on reopening after the Dusshera break.The Ethics Committee of the Lok Sabha on 26 October witnessed appearances by Dubey and Dehadrai whorecorded their statements.The committee then summoned Moitra to appear before it on 31 October.Then, on 27 October, Moitra wrote to the Lok Sabha ethics committee saying she would be unable to appear before it on the hearing scheduled for 31 October.Moitra cited work commitments as the reason for not being able to appear.

Moitra on the same day admitted to sharing her login password with Darshan.

“No MP types her/his own question. I have given him (Darshan) the password and login for someone in his office to type it (the questions) down and upload,” she told Indian Express.She added that a one-time password is required to upload a query.“My phone number is given (for the OTP)… There is no question of Darshan or anyone putting it without my knowledge.”She also streneously denied having received cash from Darshan.The committee on Saturday granted Moitra a two-day extension but asked her to appear before it on 2 November.The committee headed by BJP MP Vinod Kumar Sonkar said it would not entertain any further requests for extension for any reason whatsoever "keeping in view the seriousness of the matter, having implications on the dignity of Parliament as well as its Members".As per Bar and Bench, Moitra on Tuesday told the Delhi High Court she is dropping the defamation cases against the media houses.Moitra on the same day said she would appear before the ethics committee on 2 November.Moitra posted her letter to the committee on X:However, as per Deccan Chronicle, Moitra queried whether it is an “appropriate forum” to examine the charges against her.She also stated that she wanted to cross-examine both Darshan and Dehradrai.She pointed out that parliamentary committees lack criminal jurisdiction and emphasised the importance of involving law enforcement agencies in such cases.“While registering my protest, I wish to inform you that I will respect the summons and appear before the Committee on 2 November, 2023 at 11 am,” she said.Dubey on Wednesday  referred to "media reports" that Moitra's login was opened 47 times from Mr Hiranandani's place in Dubai and as many questions were asked in Parliament."If this news is true, then all the MPs of the country should stand against Mahua ji's corruption. Hiranandani asked questions in Lok Sabha for Hiranandani. Are we MPs for promoting selfish interests of capitalists," Mr Dubey said on X.How serious are the charges?That depends on the charges– and whether Moitra is found guilty.When it comes to the charge of sharing login credentials, senior Supreme Court lawyer Sanjay Hegde told The Quint that practice parliamentarians sharing their login credentials seems to be par for the course.“Sharing the login id with researchers appears to be part of the general modus operandi of a whole host of MPs,” Hegde was quoted as saying. “For instance, quite a few MPs are technically challenged. In actual operating procedures, personal assistants, researchers and other people associated with MPs use their login credentials to undertake Parliamentary work on their behalf.”PDT Achary, secretary general of the 14th and 15th Lok Sabhas, told Indian Express that a question delivered on a member’s behalf on a form must be signed by the member.But is there any rule against sharing login credentials?

"To the best of my knowledge, there is no specific rule on MP's sharing login credentials,” Hegde told The Quint.

Achary confirmed the same, telling Indian Express the lack of such a rule is due to the relatively new practice of submitting questions online.“The rule should have been amended when online submissions were allowed. Had there been a rule, some safeguards against violations would have been specified as well,” Achary said.What about quid pro quo?Hegde told the outlet Moitra’s accusers will need to prove the quid pro quo of gifts being given for questions asked.They will have to show that a specific question or questions had to do with Hiranandani and his business interests, he added.Achary told Indian Express if the quid pro quo is proved then it is a ‘serious issue’.He added that in such an instance the Lok Sabha’s privileges committee should actually be hearing the issue“In my opinion, it should have been referred to the Privileges Committee, which is the only committee with the mandate to look into alleged breaches of privilege and contempt of the House. The Ethics Committee has been dealing only with some [less serious] questions of propriety, etc. — not with cases where there is an alleged breach of privilege. For example, there was a case in which a man took his mistress or girlfriend on an official tour saying she was his wife, and the Ethics Committee looked into it,” Achary said.Let’s say Moitra is found guilty by the ethics committee.What happens next?Well, in the Lok Sabha, a parliamentary panel such as the ethics committee does not have the power to take any action against any MP found guilty.Instead, the committee will issue a report which will be presented to the Lok Sabha speaker – who will then decide to take it forward by passing the order or tabling it.Achary told the Indian Express, “I think the Ethics Committee can only recommend suspension.”

But it will ultimately be left up to the House to decide Moitra’s fate.

As Achary explained, “The House can accept the recommendation and agree with the suggested punishment, or perhaps agree with the findings but not with the punishment — it can take a lenient view.”But what about if Moitra is expelled by the House? Can she challenge it in a court of law?Achary told the newspaper that expulsion can be challenged if the committee acted in an ‘illegal or unconstitutional’ manner against the principles of natural justice.“The window for the court’s view is small. It is unconstitutionality, gross illegality, and denial of natural justice. These are the grounds on which a challenge can be mounted,” Achary concluded.In the 2005 Raja Ram Pal cash for query case the Supreme Court in a landmark decision upheld the expulsion of 11 members of Parliament.The over 300-page judgment of the five-judge constitution bench headed by then Chief Justice of India YK Sabharwal dismissed the plea against Parliament’s expulsion of the members in a 4-1 decision.With inputs from agencies