On Wednesday (3rd January), the Supreme Court refused interim relief to Mahua Moitra over her expulsion from Lok Sabha in the Cash for Questions case. The former TMC MP was moved out of the parliament after the report of the ethics committee was tabled in the parliament on 8th December 2023. Mahua Moitra’s counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi requested interim relief so that she could take part in the budget session of the parliament. The court rejected the plea and asked the Lok Sabha secretariat to file a response in this case within 14 days. The next hearing will take place on 11th March 2024.
Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta noted that a key point of consideration will be the Court’s authority to examine the actions of the Lok Sabha. The court has ordered that a response must be submitted within two weeks, followed by a rejoinder from the petitioner, if any, within the subsequent three weeks.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Mahua Moitra didn’t deny that she shared her parliamentary login credentials with industrialist Darshan Hiranandani, but instead justified it by saying that it was similar to MPs delegating work to their assistants. He claimed that this does not amount to any violation of rules, as there is no rule barring MPs from sharing their login credentials and OTPs with others.
Singhvi: Let me argue on interim relief. I can be allowed to take part in proceedings.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) January 3, 2024
SC: No, no. We will take it up when listed.
Singhvi: Lordships may issue notice on interim relief.
SC: We are not dismissing. It is not a long date we have given.
Singhvi: Please give it…
In his argument, Abhishek Manu Singhvi said, “There is the only ground on which she is expelled which is sharing her login credentials. Second, importantly login access to the portal does not amount to its use since there is an additional step for authentication in the form of an OTP. Third, no existing code of conduct regulates the sharing of passwords or access, there are no existing rules, but she has been expelled under a rule on hacking.”
Singhvi: Ethics committee arrived at findings without following principles of natural justice. Two private citizens send in a complaint, I am not allowed to cross-examine…
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) January 3, 2024
Khanna J: Did you ask to cross-examine?
Singhvi: Many times.#SupremeCourtofIndia #MahuaMoitra
Interestingly, Singhvi also claimed that advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai suppressed the fact that Mahua Moitra was in a physical relationship with him. Notably, Dehadrai is Moitra’s ‘jilted ex’ who exposed her by disclosing that Hiranandani was posting questions in Lok Sabha on behalf of Mahua Moitra by using her parliamentary login credentials from Dubai.
He said, “Ethics committee arrived at findings without following principles of natural justice. Two private citizens send in a complaint, I am not allowed to cross-examine. The alleged bribe-giver is not summoned. The committee’s findings are contradictory. Mr Jai (complainant) suppresses the fact that she was in a physical relationship with him. He said that Mr Hiranandani was asking her to submit questions. Mr Hiranandani has said that he was being pressurised to submit. Can an MP not delegate her work? Imagine Hiranandani to be her secretary for a minute. Now you can say that he is not her secretary.”
Singhvi: The alleged bribe-giver is not summoned. Committee's findings are contradictory. Mr Jai (complainant) suppresses the fact that she was in a physical relationship with him. He said that Mr Hiranandani was asking her to submit questions. Mr Hiranandani has said that he was…
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) January 3, 2024
To this, Justice Khanna said, “So you are accepting that you shared the OTP with Hiranandani?”
Singhvi: Can an MP not delegate her work? Imagine Hiranandani to be her secretary for a minute. Now you can say that he is not her secretary…
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) January 3, 2024
Khanna J: So you are accepting that you shared the OTP with Hiranandani?
Singhvi: As every parliamentarian does with their secretaries…
Abhishek Manu Singhvi further contended, “Based on the committee’s report a motion was moved. However, members were not allowed to examine the 439-page-long report. It was tabled at noon on 8th December without sharing first. The debate starts at 2 PM. The earliest supply starts at 12, and last after the start of the debate. Even Your Lordships give us time to go through counters etc.”
Singhvi: Natural justice is on two things: One, ethics committee…no-cross-examination. Now second level, on the basis of the committee's report a motion was moved. But members were not given opportunity to examine the 439-page-long report. It was tabled at 12 noon at 8 without…
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) January 3, 2024
When the court asked for a response from the Lok Sabha Secretariat, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the secretariat said, “Lordships may not issue notice. Kindly do not issue notice. The sovereign organ of the state decides its internal discipline matter on evidence. What is the scope of judicial review, if at all?” Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appeared for MP Nishikant Dubey, who made the complaint against Moitra.
Singhvi: Parliamentary is not supposed to be a trivial place. Parliament barely given time to read or examine the 400 page report. Even a genius cannot. Even in court we are given time to go through counters etc.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) January 3, 2024
SC: Any body for the respondents? You file your reply.
SG…
In its order, the court pronounced, “Several issues have been raised. We would not like to comment on any issue at this stage. One of the issues is about the jurisdiction of this court and the power of judicial review. Let a reply be filed by the first respondent within 3 weeks. Rejoinder, if any, within 3 weeks. Relist in the week commencing March 11.”
Bench pronounces –
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) January 3, 2024
"A number of issues have been raised. We will not like to comment on any issue at this stage. One of the issues is with regard to jurisdiction of this court and the power of judicial review. Ld senior advocate appearing for petitioner has relied upon Raja…
Mahuagate: TMC MP Mahua Moitra faces allegations of ‘cash for query’
On 8th December, Lok Sabha expelled Trinamool Congress’s MP Mahua Moitra based on the recommendations of the Ethics Committee in a cash-for-query case. Moitra was expelled hours after the Ethics Committee report was tabled in Lok Sabha.
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.
