These boots are made for walkin’

CHENNAI: When the Lok Sabha deliberates next month upon the recommendation by the Ethics Committee to expel Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, it will hopefully consider a few important questions before proceeding to vote on her future in the Parliament.

Given the trigger-happy predisposition of the ruling party when it comes to silencing critics, it is a matter of scepticism whether these questions will be considered at all. But for India to justifiably claim herself to be the mother of democracy, they must be given due consideration.

The first is whether due process has been followed. The case against Moitra emanated from personal bitterness between her and her ex-partner, who chose to rat on her to BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, who himself had an axe to grind against her, having been exposed by the feisty MP for his dodgy educational credentials.

Making common cause, the latter petitioned the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee to act against Moitra for allegedly receiving bribes from a big realtor, Darshan Hiranandani, for asking questions in the Parliament that put his rival, the Adani Group, in the dock. While Moitra owned up to giving realtor Hiranandani the login credentials to her Lok Sabha account to write out the questions he wanted her to ask, she denied receiving any bribes.

Proceedings have moved unusually fast, raising the question whether the MP has been given a proper hearing. In three weeks from the filing of Dubey’s petition to the Ethics Panel, an unsigned ‘affidavit’ was procured from Hiranandani attesting he did write out questions for the MP (but not admitting that he paid her any money for it); the Ministry of Home Affairs agreed with Dubey that indeed there could be a threat to national security if MPs allowed, as many of them routinely do, others to access their Lok Sabha login credentials; the Ethics Panel hurriedly held a hearing in which the woman MP was asked intrusive questions about her personal life; and a recommendation of sacking was made disregarding the opposition’s objections. In India, where the wheels of law turn at a snail’s pace, this was quick indeed.

Secondly, is the action recommended against Moitra proportionate to her breach? It is de rigueur for MPs to give their login credentials to aides to assist them in framing questions. Also, it is common for MPs globally to ask questions in legislatures at the behest of interest groups and lobbies. The propriety of such practices falls in a grey area.

In India, MPs have been disqualified in the past, most notably 11 MPs in 2005, on cash-forquery charges. But the bribery was proved in such cases. Has similar proof been furnished in Moitra’s case? So far no agency has come up with a money trail or evidence of a quid pro quo. So, any action taken now would have to be proportionate to Moitra’s ‘misconduct’.

Lastly, the proceedings against Moitra might have been justifiable had similar alacrity been shown by our regulators and investigating agencies in probing the Adani Group. Crores of questionable funding has flown into their coffers from shadowy entities, while thousands of investors and PSUs suffered huge losses when the cover was blown off that scandal. It’s fair to ask why such groups are not investigated while Moitra is sought to be punished for receiving a motherlode of Salvatore Ferragamo shoes.