A division Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta asked the Lok Sabha secretariat to file the reply within three weeks. The matter will now be listed in March for a hearing.
—
ON Wednesday, the Supreme Court called for a reply from the secretary-general of the Lok Sabha secretariat on a petition filed by the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) leader Mahua Moitra on her petition challenging her expulsion from Lok Sabha over alleged unethical conduct.
A division Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta asked the Lok Sabha secretariat to file the reply within three weeks. The matter will now be listed in March for a hearing.
The Bench did not pass any order on the interim relief for the time being. The Bench said it would first decide to what extent it has the power of judicial review over the expulsion of Moitra.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appeared for the secretary-general of the Lok Sabha secretariat.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for Moitra, argued that Moitra was expelled solely for the reason that she shared her login credentials with ‘unauthorised persons’.
He added that the login access to the portal did not amount to control over its use since the portal requires an additional step of a one-time password (OTP) that is directly and exclusively sent to the user’s (petitioner’s) phone.
Singhvi also argued that the mode, manner and conduct of the proceedings in both the Ethics Committee and the Lok Sabha were vitiated by gross illegality and unconstitutionality as there had been a violation of due process and natural justice.
In her petition, Moitra contends that out of necessity, nearly every parliamentarian delegates access to the portal to various secretarial staff, including private citizens.
“No existing Code of Conduct or other law prescribes any guidelines or restrictions governing the grant of authorised and controlled access to the portal to non-members.
Sections 43 of the Information Technology Act 2000, read with Section 66 of the Act, sought to be pressed into service by the Ethics Committee, evidently relate to situations such as hacking, and not to a case such as the present one, i.e., of granting authorised and controlled access to third-parties for secretarial support,” the petition by Moitra contends.
The petition states that the proceedings were initiated based on cash-for-query allegations made by one Jai Dehadrai, a private citizen, who was presented to the committee as an unconnected professional.
The affidavit tendered by Dehadrai along with the complaint, the petition states, did not swear to the truth and correctness of its contents without which it was impossible to hold him accountable for the allegations he outlined in his complaint.
The petition argues that the Ethics Committee’s findings were pivoted upon the contradictory and self-serving affidavits of two private citizens, namely Jai Dehradai and Darshan Hiranandani.
In such a situation, the petition states, cross-examination was the only way to glean which— if either— of those testimonies is true, and to what extent.
As per Dehradai’s complaint, it was Hiranandani who was bribing Moitra to ask parliamentary questions in order to benefit his commercial enterprises. On the other hand, according to Hiranandani, it was he who was being pressurised into submitting parliamentary questions on behalf of the petitioner, with no consideration exchanging hands.
Moitra has thus argued that in disallowing cross-examination despite repeated requests by her, the committee gave a go-by to the fundamentals of natural justice, which is fatal in law to the committee proceedings.
“Let alone cross-examine, the Ethics Committee failed to even summon Darshan Hiranandani, the alleged bribe-giver, with whom the petitioner has purportedly shared the login credentials to her Lok Sabha members’ portal in quid pro quo,” the petition states.
In her petition, Moitra also asserts that Dehradai made cash-for-query allegations, i.e., he avers that Hiranandani bribed the petitioner for asking certain questions in the Parliament that would advance his business interests.
However, Dehradai was unable to point to a money trail between Darshan Hiranandani and the petitioner.
Thereafter, Moitra contends, that even in his oral testimony before the Ethics Committee, he failed to point to money transactions and quid pro quo that could link the petitioner with Hiranandani.
“Resultantly, this is a case of ‘no evidence’ as the two shreds of materials against the petitioner are only self-serving affidavits of a purported witness who never entered the witness box, and another of an estranged partner.
There are no other materials, let alone evidence, on the basis of which a cash-for-query relationship could have been established. The recommendations of the Ethics Committee are, thus, perverse,” the petition states.
Moitra has also contended that members of the Lok Sabha were not given the opportunity to go through the 495-page Ethics Committee report despite repeated requests.
“Both the resolutions— first, concurring with the Ethics Committee report’s recommendation, and second, expelling the petitioner on that basis— were adopted by the Lok Sabha without giving members the opportunity to examine the report they were voting to concur or disagree with,” Moitra’s petition argues.
It details that the Ethics Committee report was tabled for consideration at 12 p.m. on December 8, 2023 without first furnishing a copy to the members.
The report was thereafter shared via email in six tranches. The first five of them were sent out at 12:03 p.m., 12:30 p.m., 1:03 p.m., 1:33 p.m. and 2:07 p.m.
The last tranche— containing the dissent notes of five members of the Ethics Committee who opposed the petitioner’s expulsion— was sent out at 2:39 p.m., i.e., after the motion for the petitioner’s expulsion had been moved at 2:00 p.m. and substantial discussion had happened thereon.
“A resolution passed without examination of the report of the committee will necessarily be without application of mind, and based on irrelevant considerations, which makes it prima facie unconstitutional and grossly illegal,” the petition argues.
“Any resolution of the House must be supported by an elementary understanding of or discussion in the House of the issues involved. If the resolution is based on a report of a committee on which the House can agree, disagree, or take a third course, then, at a minimum, the report should be available to the members reasonably in advance,” she argues in her petitioner.
Moitra’s petition adds that absent these elementary requirements, any House resolution, particularly on something as severe as expelling a member from the House, will be tainted by a lack of elementary due process.
“This is particularly true because in forming its view on the report and the recommendations of the committee, the House is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity.
“In any case, the petitioner’s expulsion from the Lok Sabha is grossly disproportionate,” the petitioner contends.
