Edited by Deepali Verma
A notice was issued by the Supreme Court directing the Lok Sabha General Secretary on January 3 to submit a response to Trinamool Congress Party (TMC) leader Mahua Moitra’s appeal challenging her removal from the Lok Sabha concerning the cash-for-query case.
The next hearing is scheduled for the week starting March 11. The bench has permitted two weeks to the Secretariat to respond while Moitra was given three weeks to reply to the affidavit.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi urged the top court to allow Moitra to participate in Lok Sabha proceedings in the capacity of an interim measure. However, an immediate decision on this request was denied by the bench.
Singhvi stated, “Let me put up an argument on interim relief. I may be permitted to partake in the proceedings.” In response, the bench clarified that it wasn’t giving an stance on the interim relief presently, stating, “No, no. We will take it up when listed.”
As the hearing progressed, Singhvi mentioned that there is no rule that prohibits the sharing of login credentials. He said that it is a rather common practice among many MPs to delegate their work to secretaries and assistants for uploading questions. He argued that the only concrete reveal against Moitra in the ethics committee’s report was her unauthorised sharing of MP portal login credentials with third parties. In response to this, Justice Khanna asked Singhvi, “So you are in acceptance that you shared the OTP with Hiranandani?”
Moitra had knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court to challenge her expulsion from the Lok Sabha. She was expelled from the Lok Sabha on December 8 owing to an Ethics Committee report that found her “guilty of unethical conduct.” The report encouraged the government for a thorough “intense, legal, institutional inquiry” into the cash-for-query allegations against Moitra within a specific timeframe.
In October, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey on the basis of a complaint by Supreme Court lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai alleged that Moitra had solicited cash and gifts from businessman by the name of Darshan Hiranandani in exchange for putting questions in the Parliament that was in conflict with industrialist Gautam Adani’s business interests.
