The Ethics Committee of the Lok Sabha has summoned Trinamool
Congress MP Mahua Moitra, to depose before it in connection with the cash for query
scandal, on November 2.
Responding to the Trinamool Congress MP’s submission
that she won’t be able to appear before the panel until November 5, it said it
would entertain no request for extension in the date of appearance.
“The undersigned is directed to refer to your letter
dated October 27, 2023, on the above mentioned subject or reference and to
state that Honourable Chairperson, Committee on Ethics has acceded to your
request for extension of date for appearing before the Committee on Ethics, ie,
rescheduling the sitting of the Committee. It has, accordingly, been decided to
hear you in the above matter, in person, on 2 November, 2023 at 1100 hours in
Committee Room 2, Parliament House Annexe Extension, New Delhi,” the panel’s
notification reads.
“The chairperson has also directed the undersigned to
convey you that keeping in view the seriousness of the matter, having
implications on the dignity of Parliament as well as its Members, any further
request for extension of date for appearing before the Committee, which is,
rescheduling the sitting of the Committee for any reason whatsoever would not
be entertained,” it added.
Meanwhile, Moitra admitted to letting Hiranandani
Group CEO Darshan Hiranandani use her Lok Sabha login credentials to post
questions that she claimed were hers.
Moitra also added that the only things she had
received from, as gifts were “one scarf, some lipsticks, and other makeup items
including eye shadow”.
She refuted allegations of accepting bribes from Hiranandani
and demanded that she be given the chance to cross-examine him, in an interview
to a media house.
Her remarks come amid allegations that she received
gifts from Hiranandani in exchange for asking questions in Parliament.
BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and Delhi-based lawyer Jai
Anant Dehadrai have already recorded their statements and presented evidence
against the Trinamool MP.
Moitra lashed out against Dehadrai, saying his
complaint against her was motivated by the acrimonious custody battle that both
were fighting over their pet dog Henry.
Moitra defended sharing login credentials with Hiranandani
saying she has done that with others too “as she worked from a remote
constituency.”
“But there is always an OTP and the team would always
post my questions,” she said, claiming that the NIC that operates government
and Parliamentary websites had no rules against this.
This was countered by Dubey in a tweet in which he
posted the rules specified by the NIC and a form that every parliamentarian was
obligated to fill out. These include instructions to keep the credentials
private and confidential and inform the NIC of any alternate user as any breach
could have security implications.
Dubey demanded an inquiry into the bids that he
claimed were being made to influence Hiranandani and if Moitra was in touch
with him. Hiranandani is an approver in this case with his signed affidavit
corroborating the charges raised against Moitra by both Dubey and Dehadrai.
She said she had consulted him for changing the
interiors of her house, and he had presented her with new architectural plans
and drawings, but the expenses were undertaken by the CPWD which comes under
the government.
“When I was allotted my personal bungalow, it was in a
dilapidated state. I asked Darshan if he could get one of his architects how
the doors can be re-designed so light can come in,” said Moitra, showing
pictures of designs sent to her by Hiranandani’s architects for the bungalow’s
rooms, layout, and kitchen.
She said the designs were submitted to the Central
Public Works Department (CPWD) and claimed that her bungalow’s renovation was
done by the government body.
Moitra said whenever she was in Mumbai, she would use Hiranandani’s
car as he was a friend.
“I would urge Darshan Hiranandani to come immediately
and put on record if he has given anything else to me. Anyone can make an
allegation, but the onus is always on the complainant to prove those
allegations. There’s no mention of ₹ 2 crore cash given to me in the affidavit.
If cash is being given, please tell the date and provide all the documentary
evidence,” she said.
NE Watch Desk
