Mahua Moitra Recommended for Expulsion by Lok Sabha Ethics Committee

Mahua Moitra was recommended to be expelled by the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee on Thursday after it found her guilty of "unethical conduct" and "contempt of the House" for accepting gifts and giving her login credentials to an unauthorized person.

The Trinamul Congress MP will have about one more month to serve as a member of the Lok Sabha since the expulsion won't take effect until the start of the winter session of Parliament on December 4.

Members of the opposition said that her expulsion had been inevitable from the beginning of the proceedings. One ethics panel member said, "It was all scripted."

In a brief discussion, the panel decided to endorse the draft report, with four members voting against Moitra's expulsion and six members, including Congresswoman Preneet Kaur, in favor. Kaur is the spouse of Amarinder Singh, the Punjab chief minister for the Congress who is now a member of the BJP.

The 15-member panel including Uttam Kumar Nalamada Reddy of the Congress and the other opposition members will include dissent comments in the report that will be sent to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Reddy was not present during the meeting pertaining to the nominations filed for the Telangana Assembly elections.

Upon the commencement of the winter session of the Lok Sabha, the report on the cash-for-query charges would be presented. The government will then introduce a resolution calling for Moitra's dismissal.

Moitra would still be able to run in the next Lok Sabha elections, which are scheduled for the summer, notwithstanding her dismissal. The government should look into the "money trail" of transactions between Moitra and businessman Darshan Hiranandani, who has filed an affidavit to back up the claim that she took pricey presents from him, according to the committee's recommendation.

The committee acknowledged that, despite its recommendation, it lacked the technical resources and knowledge necessary to look into and locate the money trail.

A person found guilty of a crime and given a sentence of two years or more in prison is prohibited from running for office for six years, starting on the day they are released from prison.

In three sittings, the ethics panel completed the investigation at a record-breaking pace.

Attorney Jai Anant Dehadrai, who initiated proceedings with his complaint—which was pursued by BJP member Nishitant Dubey—was scheduled to testify orally on October 26. On November 2, Moitra was invited to provide her account, and on November 9, the report was completed.

The group examined ethics and crime as the two main facets of the issue, according to the study.

A rap for BSP member Danish Ali for "unruly conduct and spread(ing) rumours" during the proceedings was added to its mission.

The committee deemed Moitra's actions to be "highly objectionable, unethical, heinous, and criminal," and recommended that the government look into them.

According to the report, Moitra used her deposition to focus on her personal connections with Dehadrai and Hiranandani, allegedly using this as a way to divert attention from her “unethical conduct” as an MP.

After three hours on November 2, opposition MPs and Moitra left the committee meeting, claiming that chairman Vinod Kumar Sonkar had spent too much time discussing personal details of the case.

The opposition members of parliament have refuted the claims made in the report, calling the investigation process a "farce" and claiming it was an example of a "kangaroo court."

P.R. Natarajan, a CPM member, is said to have questioned why an unproven accusation from a concerned party was sent to the committee in his dissent letter.

Other Opposition members have emphasized that Moitra's deposition was not finished since she was only given the opportunity to be questioned by the chairman. The committee did not subject Hiranandani to a cross-examination.

Opposition members emphasized at the November 9 meeting that the extensive report was missing the minutes of the October 26 meeting, when they had questioned the chairman's decision to ask the complainants to give oral testimony first.

The chairman opted to go forward with adopting the report despite the opposition's concerns, stating that this was the only item on the agenda for the day.

Later, Sonkar claimed the report was approved by a majority vote but declined to provide the suggestion, citing protocol, while addressing reporters outside.