On 9th November, it came to light that the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee’s draft report accused Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra of “unethical conduct”. The report stated that she shared her login credentials with unauthorised individuals. The draft revealed that Moitra made multiple trips to UAE, and her account was logged in 47 times from Dubai. The Ethics committee sought a report on IP addresses and emphasised the legal consequences of the MP’s action.
Recommending Moitra’s expulsion, the report called it “unethical conduct” and “contempt of the House” while seeking a government inquiry into the matter. OpIndia accessed a portion of the report draft containing conversations between the committee members with Mahua Moitra and Danish Ali.
The discussion between the committee members and Mahua Moitra revolved around her foreign trips and where she stayed. The questions led to a heated exchange centred around the “appropriateness” of the questions. Moitra and the opposition leaders vehemently raised objections to the questions.
Calling them “intrusive” questions, Moitra expressed her frustration and tried to play a victim card. She adamantly said, “This is absolutely no business of the Ethics Committee.” She further expressed her intent to file a formal complaint against the Ethics Committee member and the chairman, asserting, “I will file a complaint against the Ethics Committee and against you. I will file as a Member of Parliament.”
Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) MP Kunwar Danish Ali, Janata Dal (United) MP Giridhar Yadav, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Sunita Duggal, BJP MP Subhash Ramrao Bhamre and others were present at the hearing. Yadav, and Ali had a heated conversation over the aaleged intrusive nature of the questions. Ali condemned the questions asked about Moitra’s travel and perceived it as an insult to a female MP. He said, “You cannot insult a female MP like this.” He further accused the committee members of following a script and questioned the chairman’s understanding of the questions that were being asked. Ali disrupted the meeting multiple times.
Sunita Duggal tried to intervene, saying, “It is her prerogative, her right to reply or not.” As the conversation continued, the chairman proposed a vote to determine the course of action. However, Yadav objected to it and said, “We won’t listen to anything you say. You have been asking questions for an hour. You will ask 100 questions, what does it mean?”
Moitra accepted she shared credentials with Hiranandani’s office
In the parts of the conversation that OpIndia accessed, Moitra accepted twice that she had shared credentials with Darshan Hiranandani. Agitated by the so-called “personal questions”, she said, “We are here to determine two things. Number one, whether I gave the login and password to Darshan Hiranandani, to which he had unauthorized access. I have already told you since 2019, he has had a person in his office typing my questions. The questions were mine but not unauthorized because it was my OTP. So he did not have access. The first question has already been answered.”
Moitra categorically refused to accept that she received kickbacks from Hiranandani in exchange for the questions asked in the Parliament. She claimed that the assertion that she received kickbacks was based on the ex-boyfriend’s complaint, referring to Supreme Court Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai.
She added, “Second question, what did he give you? You tell me what proof you have or what he gave you. I do not have to disprove it. You give me the evidence of what you have. I will not sit here and answer the long list of what some ex-boyfriend has given you. That is not the job of the Ethics Committee of the Parliament of India, and a Member of Parliament does not have to answer it in front of anybody. You tell me. If there is proof that Darshan Hiranandani has given me X, you ask me yes/no to a pointed question, and that is that. I cannot sit here and answer this as to where I have gone and who I have stayed with. I suggest you deviate from your script. I suggest you deviate from your script, and I will say this on record.”
She continued, “Just because I am a witness here, you cannot follow a political ideology and read out these completely demeaning unethical questions, Mr. Chairman. I take strong umbrage, and I would request my fellow Members to follow their conscience and do a voting on this.”
Mahuagate
On 14th October, the Indian political scene experienced a major tremor as BJP MP Nishkant Dubey wrote to the ethics committee seeking an inquiry against TMC MP Mahua Moitra in the ‘Cash for Query’ matter. He based his complaint on the letter written by Supreme Court lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai, who alleged that most of the questions asked by the TMC MP in Lok Sabha directly or indirectly benefit businessman Darshan Hiranandani. Dehadrai also accused Moitra of “kidnapping” his pet dog Henry, adding another layer of complications to Mahuagate.
Moitra filed a case against Dubey and Dehadrai but never denied accepting gifts. Interestingly, she has also been accused of sharing her Lok Sabha credentials with Hiranandani so he can post questions independently. Hiranandani has reportedly turned approver in the case and submitted an affidavit suggesting the allegations against Moitra are true. Dehadrai and Dubey were called to submit evidence of Moitra’s alleged wrongdoings in front of the ethics committee on 26th October. When the Ethics Committee initially called Moitra, she refused, claimed to have prior engagements and sought another date. She got another date for the hearing, and on the day of the hearing, she played the victim card while coming out, claiming she faced “cheerharan” like Draupadi from Mahabharat.
Meanwhile, Henry has been returned to Dehadrai.
