On 19th December, the Delhi High Court refused to pass a stay order on the plea by Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mahua Moitra challenging the government of India’s order to vacate the government-allotted bungalow. She has been asked to vacate the bungalow by 7th January 2024 in the wake of her expulsion from the Lok Sabha.
During the hearing, Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that a similar plea was submitted by Moitra in the Supreme Court. Hence, any orders passed by the High Court could amount to impinging on the apex court’s proceedings. Justice Prasad said, “You have challenged the order by filing a writ petition. One of the prayers can be a stay of the order. If the Supreme Court grants a stay in your favour, your suspension will be stayed. If we adjudicate on this, it will be directly impinging on the SC proceedings.”
Bench: What do i do sir? You have challenged the order by filing a writ petition. One of the prayers can be stay of the order.. if the SC grants a stay in your favour, your suspension will be stayed. If we adjudicate on this,it will be directly impinging on the SC proceedings.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) December 19, 2023
The matter will be heard in the Delhi High Court on 4th January after the Supreme Court hears the plea on 3rd January. Justice Prasad noted, “We will have it on January 4 after the Supreme Court opens and deals with your case. The matter is listed on January 3 (before the Supreme Court).” Furthermore, Justice Prasad refused to pass any interim order which was requested by Moitra’s lawyers.
In her plea in the High Court, she said that the matter of her expulsion is yet to be heard in the Supreme Court. She urged the Delhi High Court to quash the 11th December order of the Directorate of Estates of the Government of India to cancel her government accommodation and vacate the premises by 7th January 2024. Furthermore, she asked the court to allow her to continue to live in the bungalow till the results of the Lok Sabha elections 2024 are announced.
She said in her plea, “In the event that the petitioner is so allowed, she will readily undertake to pay any charges that may be applicable for the extended period of stay.” She argued that if she vacated the bungalow, it would affect her ability to carry out activities required to do in the run-up to the Lok Sabha elections. She submitted, “Instability in accommodation, however, would pose a significant impediment to the Petitioner’s ability to host and engage with party members, parliamentarians, fellow politicians, visiting constituents, key stakeholders and other dignitaries, which is essential, especially in the lead up to a general election. In addition, the Petitioner is a woman living alone in New Delhi. She has no place of residence or alternative accommodation in Delhi. Therefore, if evicted from her government accommodation, she will have to fulfil the duties of campaigning while also finding, and then shifting to, a new residence all by herself. This will place an onerous burden on the Petitioner.”
Mahuagate, expulsion and orders to vacate the bungalow
On 8th December, Lok Sabha passed a resolution to expel TMC leader Mahua Moitra from the parliament. The decision was taken on the recommendations based on the Ethics Committee report in cash-for-query matter. Notably, on 15th October, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey accused Moitra of taking cash and gifts for asking questions in Lok Sabha. The allegations were based on a complaint filed by Moitra’s ex-partner advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai.
Moitra was accused of sharing her Lok Sabha credentials with businessman Darshan Hiranandani who is a rival of businessman Gautam Adani. It was alleged that the majority of the questions raised by the MP in Lok Sabha directly or indirectly favoured Hiranandani. Furthermore, in a sworn affidavit submitted by Hiranandani in the Indian Embassy in Dubai, it was noted that the businessman paid Moitra for questions in the form of expensive gifts etc.
Following the allegations, the Ethics Committee summoned Moitra to participate in an investigation into the matter. During the committee meeting, Moitra accused the committee members of asking personal questions and stormed out of the room. Later, the Ethics Committee submitted its report in which Moitra was found guilty of sharing credentials and taking cash and gifts for asking questions in the House. The committee recommended her expulsion from the House.
