Political fog: Editorial on the ongoing cash-for-query row involving TMC MP Mahua Moitra

 The panel must be immune to prejudice, respect Ms Moitra’s privacy — personal questions were reportedly asked of her during the deposition — and reach a decision on the basis of consensus

Mahua Moitra: File Photo

TT, Editorial, 03.11.23 : The personal and the political can intersect in illuminating ways in Indian politics. In her deposition to the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee, the Trinamul Congress leader, Mahua Moitra, has stated that the charges — the receipt of pecuniary benefits in return for asking questions on behalf of a businessman, Darshan Hiranandani, as well as sharing her parliamentary password with him — were motivated by the personal bitterness between her and her former partner, Jai Anant Dehadrai, who, along with the Bharatiya Janata Party’s Nishikant Dubey, is a complainant in the case. 

Ms Moitra has admitted to sharing her parliamentary password with Mr Hiranandani — a rule must be framed around the practice — but has denied that she received bribes. 

The Opposition members of the Committee were apparently receptive towards Ms Moitra’s plea while their BJP counterparts, unsurprisingly, demanded that she come clean on the more substantive parts of the accusations. 

The charge of cash-for-query is undeniably serious: it is a breach of privilege and is tantamount to contempt of the House. Probity is synonymous with Parliament and parliamentarians and any transgression, if proved beyond doubt, should attract punitive action. But the enquiry must also be fair and transparent. Conflicting political motives must not be permitted to influence the panel’s investigation and subsequent decision. 

Already, Ms Moitra has alleged that the Privileges and Ethics branch of the Lok Sabha has exhibited double standards: Ms Moitra’s request for an extension in appearance was denied, even though such a privilege was given to a BJP parliamentarian in connection with another case. The panel must be immune to prejudice, respect Ms Moitra’s privacy — personal questions were reportedly asked of her during the deposition — and reach a decision on the basis of consensus.

The outcome of the proceedings will be known in time. But the panel’s decision, whether in favour of Ms Moitra or not, should not deflect attention from the questions that the TMC leader has been raising consistently in Parliament against the Adani Group. 

Those questions need to be answered as well because they pertain to alleged irregularities committed by the business group that not only have economic and ethical ramifications but also raise — resurrect — the spectre of crony capitalism. 

A red herring could be a godsend for the BJP which is keen to shield the prime minister from these accusations in the season of elections. But the episode involving Ms Moitra should not become that diversionary tool.