Mohua Moitra’s expulsion from Lok Sabha on allegation of accepting cash and gifts for asking questions about Gautam Adani has led to an exchange of a barrage of accusations across the political aisle. Experts have termed the expulsion infirm in law.
—
ON November 8, the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) member of Parliament (MP) Mahua Moitra, representing the Krishnanagar Constituency in West Bengal, was expelled for allegedly accepting cash and gifts for asking questions in Parliament.
Moitra had allegedly asked the questions at the behest of Darshan Hiranandani, an Indian industrialist based in Dubai.
The report of the ethics committee, recommending her expulsion, emphasised that Moitra had shared her login credentials with Hiranandani, thereby putting “national security” at risk.
The ethics committee reportedly recommended her expulsion for “unethical conduct,” “breach of privilege,” and “contempt of the House”. A motion of voice vote was adopted in the Parliament, adopting the recommendation of expulsion by the ethics committee’s report.
Moitra’s expulsion comes in the light of a complaint filed by a Delhi-based lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai, who alleged that Moitra had asked questions in the Parliament about industrialist Gautam Adani on instructions from competitor Hiranandani. Dehadrai is a former partner of Moitra.
In addition, the ethics committee investigated the allegations made by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey on Moitra taking a bribe.
Yesterday, a petition against Moitra’s expulsion from Lok Sabha was mentioned before the Supreme Court for urgent listing.
The Bench, led by the Chief Justice of India Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and also comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra noted that the plea for urgent listing will be considered after an email is notified in that respect.
Reportedly, the plea termed the decision of expulsion as “unfair, unjust, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice”.
Condemnation of the expulsion
In a statement released on December 13, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), one of India’s leading human rights organisations, has condemned Moitra’s expulsion.
The statement highlights that the procedure followed for Moitra’s expulsion is “rife with potential irregularities and substantively unjust” for not following due procedure.
The PUCL terms Moitra’s expulsion as “procedurally wrong” and “substantively unjust”. It also says that the decision to expel Moitra affects parliamentary democracy as it deprives over 14 lakh voting members of the parliamentary constituency of Krishnanagar of their representative in the Parliament.
The statement claims that the ethics committee did not have any evidence of the cash trail. The sharing of passwords and other login details to the Parliamentary website does not violate any existing rule or law, the PUCL pointed out.
The illegality of sharing credentials is questioned since the Parliament does not specify any rules on sharing passwords.
Article 118 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Parliament to make its own rules for conducting business.
In 1997, the ethics committee of Rajya Sabha was inaugurated to oversee the moral and ethical conduct of Rajya Sabha MPs. Whereas, in Lok Sabha, while the constitution of an ethics committee was recommended in 1997, the first ad hoc committee was constituted in 2000.
The ethics committee became a permanent body of Lok Sabha only in 2015.
For instance, in 2005, Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha adopted motions to expel MPs on accusations of asking questions in Parliament in exchange for money. While a special committee was set up in Lok Sabha, the ethics committee examined the accusation in Rajya Sabha.
According to the ‘Rules of Committee of Ethics’, the ethics committee was established in Lok Sabha to oversee the moral and ethical conduct of Lok Sabha MPs and to examine cases referred to the committee concerning ethical and other misconduct of Lok Sabha MPs.
Once a matter is referred to the ethics committee, it conducts a preliminary inquiry. If the committee is of the opinion that a prima facie case exists, the committee examines the issue and presents its recommendations as a report. After the report is tabled before the Parliament, a motion is passed on whether the Parliament agrees or disagrees with the recommendation.
The process of expulsion, according to the PUCL, resembles a “kangaroo court”, where the report of the committee was tabled at noon and a motion of expulsion was passed at 2 p.m. on the same day. This did not give MPs enough time to familiarise themselves with the report, the PUCL statement reads.
Moitra was not given a chance to cross-examine the complainant or other witnesses, the statement reads.
The statement highlights that Moitra has brought the attention of Indians to “crony capitalism” and has been “fearless in pointing to the direction India is heading towards”.
“One of the signs of fascism she highlighted was a ‘resounding disdain for human rights at every level of the government’. Today she is a victim of that very contempt for human rights,” the statement reads.
According to the PUCL, Moitra’s expulsion represents a patriarchal mindset, due to the alleged “crass, crude and irrelevant nature of questioning” that violated her right to privacy and dignity.
The statement reasons that parliamentary democracy is under threat as members of the opposition, who contribute to the successful working of the democracy, are expelled without just and fair procedure.
S.N. Sahu, former press secretary to the President of India K.R. Narayanan, writing in The Wire, asks, “Did the ethics committee, as a mini-Parliament forming part of the apex legislature making law for the nation, adhere to the basic legal process while dealing with the Moitra’s case?”
Sahu points out that the possible danger to national security and hacking of the official parliamentary portal is considered by the ethics committee.
However, Sahu stresses, “It only refers to a possibility and not an actual eventuality. Based on a probabilistic scenario, the extreme measure of expelling Moitra sounds quite disproportionate.”
Chief Minister of West Bengal and head of TMC Mamata Banerjee denounced the expulsion and termed it as the “death of democracy” and “vendetta politics”.
Congress MP Shahi Tharoor referred to the report of the ethics committee as an “incredibly inadequate report”.
Tharoor remarked, “It [the report] seems to have been adopted in two and a half minutes, according to one of the members. There has been no proper procedure followed, no attempt to cross-examine those who have made accusations and at the same time the conclusion of such a major punishment as expulsion of a member to be arrived at without serious consideration is truly disgraceful.”
Former chief minister of Maharashtra and member of the Indian National Congress Prithviraj Chavan described the expulsion as a “black day” for the Parliament and indicated that Moitra was targeted for speaking against Adani.
Whereas, on the other hand, BJP member Suvendu Adhikari reportedly linked Moitra’s expulsion to her previous remark that Hindu goddess Maa Kaali was “meat-eating, alcohol-accepting”, which had caused a stir. He termed the expulsion as “divine retribution”.
In addition, BJP MP Locket Chatterjee stressed the aspect of ‘national security’, a reasoning relied upon by the ethics committee, and said, “There should be no politics on the issue of national security”.
