Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra appeared before the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee today in connection with the 'Cash for Query' allegations against her. The committee, led by BJP MP Vinod Sonkar and composed of several other MPs, initiated the deposition process in the committee room this morning, according to media reports.
In her earlier communication with the ethics panel, Moitra had requested a summons date after November 5 due to pre-scheduled Vijaya Dashmi programs. However, the panel insisted that she appear today as scheduled.
The allegations of 'Cash for Query' were made by Bharatiya Janata Party MP Nishikant Dubey, who claimed that Moitra had received bribes from a Dubai-based businessman, Hiranandani, in exchange for raising questions in Parliament targeting the Adani Group. Dubey also wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, calling for a probe into the matter, asserting that Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai had provided him with evidence of these alleged bribes. Dehadrai, along with Dubey, had previously appeared before the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee on October 26 to present oral evidence supporting their claims.
On Wednesday, Moitra made her letter to the Ethics Committee chairman, Vinod Kumar Sonkar, public, stating her intention to release it in response to the committee's decision to make her summons public. In her letter, Moitra questioned the lack of documentary evidence provided by Dehadrai to support his allegations and expressed her desire to cross-examine him, invoking the principles of natural justice.
Furthermore, she urged the committee to call Darshan Hiranandani, the alleged 'bribe-giver,' to provide documented evidence of the alleged transactions, including amounts and dates. Moitra insisted on her right to cross-examine Hiranandani and asked the committee to confirm in writing their decision regarding cross-examination.
Moitra raised concerns about what she perceived as double standards within the Ethics Committee, comparing her case to that of BJP MP Ramesh Biduri, who faced a serious complaint of hate speech. She noted that Biduri had been summoned but had not attended, and no further hearing date had been scheduled, implying a potential political bias within the committee.
Lastly, Moitra questioned the jurisdiction of the committee in investigating alleged criminality, emphasizing that parliamentary committees do not possess criminal jurisdiction and were designed to prevent misuse by a dominant government.
