Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra lost membership of the House on December 8 on the basis of a report from the parliamentary ethics committee, which held her conduct to ‘unethical’ and in ‘contempt of the House’. The panel had recommended her expulsion.
Did the Lok Sabha – a law-making body – follow the due process of law in expelling her? She allegedly asked certain questions in parliament because she was taking cash and gifts from Darshan Hiranandani, an Indian industrialist operating from Dubai. She faced accusations of sharing with him her login and password, meant for MPs to access the web portal used by parliamentarians.
Cash trail issue
The ethics committee had no conclusive evidence of a cash trail leading to Mitra, and asked the investigating agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement Directorate to unearth this trail.
In 2005 cash for query scam, 11 MPs – six from the Bharatiya Janata Party, three from the Bahujan Samaj Party and one each from the Rashtriya Janata Dal and Congress – were involved. One belonged to the Rajya Sabha. All of them were expelled from the House based on conclusive evidence captured in Cobra Post’s sting operation, which showed them receiving money for asking questions. The BJP described it as a kangaroo court verdict and L.K. Advani, while admitting the corruption aspects of the case, dubbed the expulsion the “parliamentary equivalent of capital punishment”. In 2005, the sole determining factor for expelling those MPs was cash they received for asking questions.
The allegation that Mitra received money is unproven, and so the decision to expel her raises questions about the fairness of the process and procedure followed.
No cross examination of Hiranandani
Hiranandani’s charge in his affidavit submitted before the ethics committee that he gave extensive gifts to Mitra make him as much culpable as a bribe-giver as Mitra as a recipient of those gifts. Her request to the committee to cross-examine him on the charges he hurled at her was not granted. The due process of dispensing justice mandating that the accused has a right to cross examine the person making allegations should have been followed. 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?
Also read: (At Least) Three Critical Flaws in the Ethics Committee Report on Mahua Moitra
Issue of sharing login and password
Did Moitra, by sharing her login and password to the MP portal, breach any rules or procedures of parliament? Neither the Lok Sabha nor Rajya Sabha has any rule or procedure governing this aspect. In the absence of any such rule, she cannot be held for transgression of a parliamentary procedure and law. At best, she violated the guidelines which say MPs must change their passwords every three months.
The crucial question is that, in the absence of any rule framed by parliament on the issue of login ID and password sharing, how can Moitra be proceeded against for a breach of the guidelines? The Lok Sabha should not encroach upon the domain of the executive. At best, the ethics committee of the Lok Sabha should have asked the relevant government department to deal with the issue of Moitra sharing her login and password. The possible danger to national security and hacking of the MP portal because of sharing her login and password has been raised in the ethics committee report. 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.
Moitra not allowed to speak in the House in her defence
The ethics committee report on the Moitra issue, containing almost 500 pages, was made available to MPs a short while before it was taken up for discussion. As a result they could not read it and adequately apply their minds to its contents to deal with a grave issue of expulsion of a fellow MP.
The crucial point is whether Moitra got a chance to reply when the House was discussing the report to expel her. Clearly her request in this respect was not granted even as several other MPs participated in the discussion.
Principles of natural justice demand that the accused is heard before any decision is taken against them. Apparently, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla did not allow her to speak by citing the precedent of 2005 when the aforementioned accused MPs were not given a chance to speak in the House by then speaker, Somnath Chatterjee. Pleadings of several Lok Sabha MPs that in the 2005 case there was proven evidence against those MPs receiving cash and there is nothing against Moitra was not accepted by Birla.
Most importantly, Mohua’s expulsion from the Lok Sabha has deprived lakhs of her constituents who elected her of their right to be represented in the Lok Sabha. This was the reasoning employed by the Supreme Court while restoring Rahul Gandhi’s Lok Sabha membership after he was disqualified from the House.
The Supreme Court has held that the disqualification of an MP adversely affects the rights of the constituents they represent and the right of the MP to represent those who elected them.
The aforementioned grounds and specifically the last one raises the question if Moitra’s expulsion from a law making body is consistent with the law. Reflection on these issues entails the intent to uphold the dignity, privilege and fairness associated with the apex legislature.
S.N. Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to President of India K.R. Narayanan.
