Mahua Moitra’s conduct before the Lok Sabha’s Ethics Committee may have cost her the opportunity to defend herself. Her behavior during the proceedings and her subsequent exit from the meeting room, where she made allegations against the panel’s chairman, Vinod Sonkar, to the media, did not work in her favor. Moitra appeared visibly annoyed and even gestured at the television cameras.
The Ethics Committee is currently finalizing its report, which will be submitted to the Speaker. If the Speaker is satisfied with the report, it may be presented to the Lok Sabha during the Winter Session for necessary action. Moitra’s behavior after leaving the meeting, her statements, and the comments made by the chairman and members of the panel suggest that she may not only face charges of breaching ethics but also contempt of parliament, raising issues related to parliamentary privilege. Furthermore, larger questions regarding crony capitalism may also arise.
Moitra’s demeanor during the proceedings seemed to echo Shakespeare’s words in Macbeth, “It’s all sound and fury, signifying nothing.” As she walked out, she was accompanied by five members of the panel from opposition parties who disclosed that Moitra had valid reasons to be upset with the line of questioning adopted by Sonkar, breaking the norms of parliamentary committees.
Sonkar, on the other hand, informed reporters that Moitra had displayed anger and used unparliamentary language against him and other members. Aparijita Sarangi from the BJP, who was present with Sonkar, confirmed this and accused two non-BJP MPs who walked out with Moitra of filibustering.
Hours after her walkout, Moitra accused Sonkar of misogyny and claimed that BJP members were hostile towards her. However, she expressed gratitude towards the two women BJP members on the panel, Aparijita Sarangi and Sunita Duggal, for remaining silent. Aparijita Sarangi’s endorsement of Sonkar’s anguish was recorded by television cameras, suggesting that Moitra’s behavior had left her speechless.
Parliamentary committee meetings are typically held in-camera, and MPs are expected to put party affiliations aside. Unlike in the US, where open hearings are conducted, the media only learns about the outcome of these meetings when a report is presented in the House.
However, in the case of Mahua Moitra, all rules seemed to have been abandoned. Moitra, who was deposed, went public with her grievances, and five members of the panel who walked out with her breached the rules. Chairman Sonkar had little choice but to respond to media questions since the details of what transpired inside the meeting room had already been exposed.
On November 2, Moitra presented her case during the hearing. In her defamation case against Jai Anant Dehadrai and Dubey, she referred to her personal life, which became the focus of questioning during the post-lunch session. This angered Moitra, and she accused the panel of prying into a lady’s late-night phone calls. Instead of clarifying her position, she stormed out of the meeting. It was not denied that she had shared her parliamentary log-in details with businessman Darshan Hiranandani, admitting to using his office’s secretarial services in Dubai to file questions with the Lok Sabha secretariat.
Moitra represents Krishnagar, which is around 100 kilometers from Kolkata. Despite being well-educated and computer-savvy, she claimed she could not find a reliable steno-typist in India and relied on Hiranandani’s secretary in Dubai.
By sharing her log-in details, Moitra overlooked Rule 7.2 of the “E-mail policy of the Government of India,” which prohibits users from sharing password details. This raises concerns about Hiranandani potentially gaining access to classified information shared during the panel’s proceedings.
Furthermore, Dehadrai’s testimony revealed that Moitra allowed Hiranandani to post 51 questions on his rivals, and the Hindenburg report, which caused significant losses to India’s stock market, contained five direct references to complaints filed by Moitra against the Adani group. Identifying the short-sellers and their accomplices involved in the Hindenburg report is crucial for the future of India’s economy.
The Ethics Committee faces a significant task in handling the Mahua Moitra case. The findings will have long-term implications for the functioning of India’s parliament and polity.
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author.
