Obfuscation, not facts were relied upon by MP who breached norm and form of Parliament.
During the Bangladesh-Sri Lanka World Cup match at Delhi’s Arun Jaitley Stadium last month, batsman Angelo Mathews threw down his helmet in disgust after the umpires invoked the new “Timed Out” rule for the first time in the history of international cricket and declared him “out”. Mahua Moitra’s reaction to the Lok Sabha expelling her on the basis of a report of the Ethics Committee was in similar vein.
Having stomped out throwing her signature tantrums from the committee’s enquiry on 2 November, she set the tone for her dismissal by entering Parliament while proclaiming “Durga Aa gayi” on 8 December. Her aggressive stance and obfuscation, which had been in evidence since the controversy erupted in mid-October, was continued even after her expulsion from membership of Lok Sabha.
As in the case of Angelo Mathews, Mahua will go down as the first offender of a new rule. As comprehension of new rules among public at large is often slouched, like Mathews she too has gained considerable public sympathy. Mathews’ sympathisers were not rule makers. In case of Mahua, Parliamentarians, themselves framers of laws and rules, seemed warped and rallied round her and demonstrated outside Parliament.
I.N.D.I.A bloc parties, which are yet to frame a common agenda, or decide on seat sharing against BJP, or even arrive at a consensus on when they ought to confabulate next, made common cause with Mahua to protest her expulsion. Her party, Trinamool Congress, which had been winking till so far suddenly jumped to her rescue, perhaps because it felt embarrassed by the fact that TMC silence notwithstanding, Congress, CPM, JDU etcetera had been standing by her throughout her ordeal.
Her mentor in politics, Rahul Gandhi, whom she had discarded in 2009 to switch to TMC, had been unobtrusively applauding her stance, especially her diatribe on Adani (a cause he relishes) from the sidelines and had been signalling TMC to come to her defence. Mamata Banerjee dithered. She had meanwhile given Mahua a fig leaf by appointing her as head of a sub-district organisational committee (Krishnanagar district organisation was bifurcated, not the administrative district, to let Mahua head one of the two party committees in that area. She had earlier headed the full district body). Mamata, who is on sojourn to Darjeeling, said Mahua will be vindicated in the court of the people (meaning: elections). Rahul Gandhi was not present in Parliament (as he usually skips the House) but Sonia Gandhi was prominent among the Mahua backers on 8 December. Narendra Modi often says that graft unites the I.N.D.I.A bloc. On 8 December, breach of parliamentary ethics did that.
By her own admission on national television, reiterated (not denied) before the Ethics Committee, Mahua had shared her Lok Sabha log-in password with Dubai-resident businessman Darshan Hiranandani,who had framed 51 questions covering his fiscal interests and posted them on the Lok Sabha Questions portal. Guidelines of NIC, which is the custodian of government portals, which MPs accept in writing before accepting log-in credentials, clearly prohibit sharing of password with “unauthorised persons”.
In the Ethics Committee report an annexure contains reply from the Ministry of Home Affairs which lists how many draft legislations, including one concerning Jammu & Kashmir delimitation and some finance bills could have been compromised during the duration when the MP shared her log-in password. Thus question of compromising strategic information also became part of the panel’s purview.
Mahua’s defence is that she used Darshan Hiranandani’s stenographer in Dubai to type in questions, which she authenticated by proving the OTP received on her phone, as her Bengali PAs in her “remote constituency” has “bad connectivity”. Krishnanagar is barely a hundred kilometres from Kolkata; it is part of the metropolis’ suburban rail network, serviced by local trains of the Sealdah Division of Eastern Railway. Apparently, there is no competent English stenographers on Indian shores. Thus she had to rely upon Hiranandani’s steno in Dubai. Rather tenuous explanation.
Mahua’s password was used on 47 occasions to log in from Dubai. She had made four visits to Dubai in recent years. When Ethics Committee asked her why no log-in had occurred on the dates of her visits to the UAE, she obfuscated. She said she used to dictate her questions to Hiranandani’s stenographer from her constituency, Krishnanagar. She authenticated the questions after receiving OTP on phone and thereafter the Dubai stenographer filed them on Parliament portal.
Darshan Hiranandani’s affidavit, sworn before an Indian consular officer in Dubai, tells a rather different story. The storm broke after a disclosure by Advocate Jai Dehadrai, whom Mahua described as “Jilted-Ex” on social media and as “ex-boyfriend” with a very “acrimonious history” before the Ethics Committee, opened the can of worms. In her defence, before the panel she said that as Dehadrai was by her side during the alleged offences, why he did not speak up then. Whistle-blower, a 19th century vintage term, does not imply a railway engine—it signifies alerting an act of wrongdoing. While it is unfair to pry into Mahua’s privacy, apparently Dehadrai’s whistle blowing, which made BJP member Nishikant Dubey flag the issue before Parliament and Lokpal, emanated due to some “acrimony”. Instead of denying Dehadrai, Mahua chose to talk on national television, admitting that she had shared her password. The panel report cites this interview in evidence.
Brouhaha over the Mahua expulsion revolves around three arguements. First, that she was not given a fair hearing. She was not allowed to speak in Parliament while being expelled. And that quid pro quo in the cash for questions matter has not been established. The panel admitted that establishing the alleged money trail was beyond its competency. It asked the government to entrust an appropriate agency—CBI has begun a preliminary enquiry (PE) as directed by Lokpal. CBI probes begin with PE, if prima facie case is established, then a case is registered. If the case leads to plausible evidence then a charge-sheet is filed in court. Probe can be dropped at PE or the second stage, not necessitating a charge-sheet. If Mahua does not persist with her aggressiveness, which was in evidence especially during her Ethics Panel hearing on 2 November, she may well be able to establish her credentials during CBI probe at PE stage itself.
Ten of the 495-page Ethics Committee report (with annexures) are devoted to summary of Mahua’s deposition. Pages 393 to 481-88 pages are devoted to detailed verbatim record of her deposition. Hence to say that she got no hearing may not be fair. As for being given a chance to speak in Lok Sabha prior to be expelled, Speaker Om Birla cited the ruling of his predecessor, Somnath Chatterjee, who was a distinguished barrister, in 2005 which had denied that opportunity to the ten MPs expelled for cash for questions. An 88-page verbatim report of proceedings certainly does not reflect denial of opportunity to speak.
Lok Sabha has acted as per rules and procedure. Just as the dismissal of Angelo Mathews on sports field was unfortunate, but equitable in law, so is Mahua’s expulsion.
The Ethics Committee records how non-BJP members, especially Kunwar Danish Ali and Giridhar Yadav, virtually acted as Mahua’s “advocates” during the probe on 2 November. Their filibustering was a breach in norms of natural justice. Can judges espouse the stand of an accused and even prompt the accused during proceedings in a court of law? Ethics Committee is quasi-judicial. But norms of jurisprudence cannot be left outside the committee room like shoes in a temple. The I.N.D.I.A bloc stand that Mahua was denied natural justice does not hold water.
During the 8 December Lok Sabha expulsion proceedings, while Manish Tewari and Kalyan Banerjee, both distinguished practitioners of law, made a spirited defence of Mahua, the defence of Giridhar Yadav, the JDU MP from Banka, a constituency in Bihar which once elected stalwarts like Madhu Limaye, was astounding. He said he allowed others to frame and submit his questions as he did not understand the process and thus Mahua had done no wrong.
Speaker Om Birla pointed out that apart from electronic filing, the old practice of submitting written questions was in vogue. Requesting MPs to refrain outsourcing their questions, he told Yadav: “You’re saying this on record. I will not let the dignity of this House be tarnished. Serious action can be taken against you in this scenario.”
Dignity of Parliament was on discount on 2 November, when Mahua before stomping out, refusing the answer questions, yelled at the committee chairman Vinod Sonkar, “behuda, besharam”. The report records that Sonkar, while posing the questions which chagrined Mahua had said, “You have the option to answer or say no comment”. Mahua did not say “no comment”. Her comment certainly was derogatory.
Proceedings reveal that it was Mahua who asked the non-BJP members to walk out along with her, which they did. Once outside the enquiry room she indulged in further breach of ethics by speaking to the media on proceedings which are supposed to be “in-camera” ( confidential). Being highly educated, a virtue she referred to even during the inquest, she certainly could not have comprehended “in-camera” as being a licence to speak to TV cameras. Danish Ali has been charged in the report for twisting out of context before media what Chairman Sonkar said behind closed doors. Committee has recommended that he be reprimanded.
While Mahua and Danish Ali certainly crossed the yellow line, it has to be noted that Chairman Sonkar and some other members, who formed the majority opinion which dictated the report against Mahua, also did not desist from speaking to TV cameras on 2 November. The findings of the committee, which ought to have been in public domain only when Speaker laid them in Lok Sabha were available to the media.
As a media person I do applaud and rejoice the trailer of the report being available in advance. But was it justified as per norm? The Mahua expulsion has underscored many chinks in Parliament’s ethics armour which perhaps a competent committee of the 18th Lok Sabha may like to ponder as the current House is in its penultimate days.