Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra was expelled from Lok Sabha on December 8, on the recommendation of an ethics committee that investigated allegations of ‘cash for query’. She was accused of taking bribes, including Rs 2 crore in cash and ‘luxury gift items’, from businessman Darshan Hiranandani, in exchange for asking questions critical of the government in parliament. Ms Moitra was also charged with surrendering to the businessman the log-in credentials to her personal and confidential account on the parliamentary website, so he could post questions directly.
On Friday, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi moved a motion to expel the Trinamool leader for her “unethical conduct”, and it was adopted by a voice vote. In Lok Sabha, the privileges committee looks into complaints raised by MPs against officials, media or other MPs; the ethics panel is the only committee that probes a layperson’s complaints against lawmakers of Lok Sabha. The work of the ethics committee and the privileges committee often overlaps. Legal experts say given that an MP has been accused of taking monetary favours in exchange for her parliamentary duties, the privileges committee should investigate her for contempt and serious breach of privilege. In this case, Ms Moitra’s expulsion was decided by the ethics committee. Various opposition party leaders, including Ms Moitra, feel the ethics committee didn’t have the power to recommend the expulsion of a member.
“Mahua Moitra had the right to inform parliament that the report of the ethics committee should not be considered but she was not given the opportunity to exercise that right. It looks like parliament assembled only to expel her that day. It is not a healthy look for our parliamentary democracy,” says Sanjay Hegde, senior advocate, Supreme Court.
During the heated discussion in Lok Sabha, Ms Moitra wasn’t allowed to speak and the motion was passed in a matter of hours.
Jai Prakash Narayan Yadav, former Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP, calls Mahua Moitra’s expulsion the “murder of parliamentary democracy”.
“Setting aside all parliamentary norms and conventions, an MP has been expelled. Her expulsion shows that if someone speaks the truth in the House which is against the ruling party, their membership can be taken away. There have been several cases of BJP MPs using abusive, provocative and communal language in the House but no action has been taken against such members. The BJP has lowered the dignity of parliamentary democracy,” says Mr Yadav.
Lok Sabha speaker Om Birla followed precedents set by former speaker Somnath Chatterjee in similar cases. In December 2005, 11 MPs – 10 from Lok Sabha and one from Rajya Sabha – were expelled over a cash-for-query scandal. Six were BJP MPs. The then leader of the House, Pranab Mukherjee, had moved a motion to expel 10 members on the same day the report of a committee that probed the allegations was introduced in Lok Sabha. The expelled MPs demanded that the PK Bansal committee report recommending expulsion be referred to the privileges committee, which would then give the MPs a chance to defend themselves. But, it was turned down. The ethics committee had then ruled that the MPs had acted in a manner that seriously impaired the dignity of the house and brought the whole institution of parliamentary democracy to shame.
This unprecedented step was seen as a move to reinforce the integrity of the political class. There are several examples. HG Mudgal of the Congress was expelled in 1951 over allegations of taking money for favours in parliament; Subramanyan Swamy was expelled in 1976 during the Emergency and Indira Gandhi in 1978.
Pratyush Kanth, the BJP’s national spokesperson, said in 2005, 10 MPs were suspended and within two hours expelled without a chance to defend themselves.
“In the case of Mahua Moitra, she goes to town saying she shared her parliament log-in credentials with a businessman. Her login was used from Dubai. Most of the questions in parliament were asked by her on behalf of a businessman to settle scores with a business rival,” Mr Kanth says.
“This was a gross misuse of power and unethical, yet the due process of law was followed in her case. She was given a chance to explain her position but she chose to play politics over it.”
The Supreme Court too has given different opinions in the past, highlighting the intricacies of parliamentary expulsions. The Raja Ram Pal case of 2007 reflected that parliament had the power to expel its members, subject to judicial review. The majority of judges were of the view that expulsion was within parliament’s powers. However, the minority dissented on the interpretation of Article 101 saying though it was exhaustive in nature, it was silent on expulsion as the ‘ground for vacancy’.
Ms Moitra has challenged her Lok Sabha expulsion in the Supreme Court. Her reasons likely include possible illegality, unconstitutionality or a denial of natural justice during the committee’s investigation. Although Article 122 of the Constitution gives immunity to proceedings in parliament from being challenged in court, Ms Moitra can exercise certain legal rights.
Explaining the legal possibilities Sanjay Hegde says, “No doubt parliament is the master of its own procedures and privileges but these privileges are not unbridled. There are limitations which even the Supreme Court has recognised in the Raja Ram Pal case. Certain parameters have been laid down. An absolute failure of natural justice would come in my opinion within the scope of limited judicial review which is available.”
He adds: “The limitations in the Raja Ram Pal case have not been adhered to in this case. Mahua Moitra can approach the court but I doubt if any hearing or reinstatement can be done in time before the expiry of this parliament’s term.”
Legal hawks and parliamentarians across parties have debated the legality of Ms Moitra’s expulsion. The issue may be kept alive by the opposition in the 2024 general election. Arguably, the Trinamool leader’s alleged action is ethically indefensible. It involves data breach and financial impropriety by an MP by sharing parliamentary login credentials with a businessman, which prima facie seems to be a quid pro quo. For now, Ms Moitra, who came to be known for her fiery and viral speeches in parliament, will be conspicuous by her absence in the remaining term of this Lok Sabha.
(Bharti Mishra Nath is a senior journalist)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
