A “jilted ex” moving around with a can of petrol is not a rarity these days. But it is not Parliament’s job to light the fire. One is prompted to make this observation while contemplating the labyrinthine personal intricacies surrounding “Mahuagate”. While Mahua Moitra’s case warrants scrutiny, it is essential to avoid conflating personal conflicts with the sanctity of parliamentary proceedings.
A thorough examination of the case reveals a mosaic of procedural issues and nuanced considerations. Nevertheless, the spectre of political vendetta casts a shadow, eclipsing the complexities. It is high time that the stakeholders consider whether a forum like Parliament ought to be subjected to a process tainted by such motivations.
The intention of this article is not to absolve Moitra, but to dispassionately analyse the substantive charges levelled against her. It would be prudent to address each of the charges and its impact separately.
The first charge, centred around the sharing of her e-portal login credentials, is a vigorously debated issue, positing a purportedly profound impact on the integrity of a parliamentarian. But one cannot dismiss the reasoning of the respondent. In all fairness, the issue could have been a potent weapon if there were explicit rules and regulations proscribing the sharing of login credentials by MPs. In the absence of a regulation, the selective scrutiny of a particular MP appears disproportionate and excessive. The sharing of login credentials is a widely adopted practice among parliamentarians in the pragmatic execution of parliamentary responsibilities, as they routinely enlist domain experts and professionals for the meticulous drafting and uploading of questions through the portal. At most, Mahua can be reproached for indiscretion, but it also opens a Pandora’s Box questioning how many MPs restrict access to their login credentials.
The next thing that grabbed the eyeballs was the imputation that Moitra took hefty sums of money and gifts to target a business group at the behest of Darshan Hiranandani, another businessman. The claim suggested that questions were raised to strangle a business entity allegedly linked with the ruling dispensation, with a competitor standing to gain. The legitimacy of such allegations hinges on the establishment of a clear quid pro quo. The serious financial allegations initially levelled against her included assertions that she accepted Rs 2 crore in cash from Hiranandani. However, if media reports are to be relied on, the theory of hefty sums has already evaporated. What endures now is solely the aspect related to gifts, something Moitra herself has openly admitted, with a detailed, item-wise description. None of these gifts are, however, opulent. Intriguingly, Hiranandani’s affidavit, spontaneously submitted to the Committee, also omits any reference to cash. This raises a question: How can the Committee, without examining Hiranandani, arrive at a conclusive judgment based on an affidavit that fails to address the critical issues of cash and substantive details of luxury gifts?
Further, the parliamentary process of raising questions is not a casual exercise but a meticulously screened endeavour by the Parliament Secretariat, adhering to strict rules. Questions violating these norms are summarily discarded. How, then, can a question be deemed ill-motivated? Even those surviving this stringent process often receive elusive answers that fail to address the crux of the matter. In Rajya Sabha, there were multiple occasions when MPs, including this writer, sought the intervention of the Chairman to extract satisfactory responses from various Ministries. In this regard, my charge against Moitra would be that she hadn’t fully harnessed the spectrum of opportunities available: Throughout her tenure of nearly five years, she raised a modest 61 questions, whereas this author has raised 285 questions in two-and-a-half years.
The Ethics Committee, which reportedly met for a few minutes on November 9, adopted the report recommending Moitra’s expulsion from the Lok Sabha. The report condemned Moitra for “unethical conduct”, “breach of her privileges” and “contempt of the House” for sharing her Lok Sabha log-in credentials with Hiranandani and also recommended an institutional inquiry into the allegation that she “shared her login credentials with an unauthorised person”. It recommended another inquiry into the allegation that she “received gifts and money”. The four Opposition members vehemently decried the panel’s recommendations as “prejudiced” and “incorrect”, asserting that Hiranandani should have been summoned to depose before the panel. The sustainability of these objections and findings of the Committee awaits scrutiny, and one wonders if these findings would stand if subjected to the discerning gaze of a judicial review, a path that Moitra may choose to tread. People close to the government had claimed through the media that the CBI enquiry was on though there was no confirmation whatsoever. If at all this is true, then the Committee or Lok Sabha arriving at a conclusion is like putting the cart before the horse.
In contemplating these developments, one may draw wisdom from the legal precedent set by the Supreme Court in Amarinder Singh v Special Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha & Ors. The Court cautioned that expressions such as “lowering the dignity of the House”, “conduct unbecoming of a member of the House”, and “unfitness of a member”, are openly-worded and abstract grounds which, if recognised, will trigger indiscriminate and disproportionate use of legislative privileges by incumbent majorities to target their political opponents.
Another intriguing facet warrants consideration: The customary trajectory for matters concerning breaches of privilege typically directs them to the Lok Sabha Committee of Privileges. The question arises: Why did the Committee on Ethics undertake the examination in this particular case?
In fact, what I would personally charge Moitra with is gross indiscretion and imprudence in engaging in a public spat over a pet dog. It serves as a reminder of the need for individuals, particularly those in the public eye, to discern between personal matters and the responsibilities inherent in their parliamentary roles.
The writer is a Rajya Sabha member from CPI(M)
It is essential to avoid conflating personal conflicts with parliamentary proceedings
11
2
05.12.2023
A “jilted ex” moving around with a can of petrol is not a rarity these days. But it is not Parliament’s job to light the fire. One is prompted to make this observation while contemplating the labyrinthine personal intricacies surrounding “Mahuagate”. While Mahua Moitra’s case warrants scrutiny, it is essential to avoid conflating personal conflicts with the sanctity of parliamentary proceedings.
A thorough examination of the case reveals a mosaic of procedural issues and nuanced considerations. Nevertheless, the spectre of political vendetta casts a shadow, eclipsing the complexities. It is high time that the stakeholders consider whether a forum like Parliament ought to be subjected to a process tainted by such motivations.
The intention of this article is not to absolve Moitra, but to dispassionately analyse the substantive charges levelled against her. It would be prudent to address each of the charges and its impact separately.
The first charge, centred around the sharing of her e-portal login credentials, is a vigorously debated issue, positing a purportedly profound impact on the integrity of a parliamentarian. But one cannot dismiss the reasoning of the respondent. In all fairness, the issue could have been a potent weapon if there were explicit rules and regulations proscribing the sharing of login credentials by MPs. In the absence of a regulation, the selective scrutiny of a particular MP appears disproportionate and excessive. The sharing of login credentials is a widely adopted practice among parliamentarians in the pragmatic execution of........
© Indian Express
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Donald Low
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
