In the realm of parliamentary ethics, the Union Information Technology Minister, Ashwini Vaishnaw, has extended a pledge of “full cooperation” from the National Informatics Centre (NIC) regarding the impending investigation by the Lok Sabha’s ethics committee. This inquiry pertains to the “cash for query” allegations that have surfaced against Mahua Moitra, a Member of Parliament representing the Trinamool Congress (TMC). Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw emphasized that the NIC, responsible for managing parliamentary and member portals, will wholeheartedly engage with the ethics committee as it commences its probe into these accusations.
The ethics committee is slated to convene on October 26, embarking on the comprehensive investigation into the allegations leveled against Moitra.
Minister Vaishnaw assured, “NIC will promptly respond to any instructions in this matter from the Lok Sabha Secretariat. NIC will also extend full cooperation to the Committee on Ethics in investigation on this matter.” These affirmations come in response to the charges brought forth by Nishikant Dubey, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Parliament who has raised concerns regarding Moitra’s conduct.
In his communique dated October 24, Minister Vaishnaw underscored the gravity of the issues raised by Dubey, acknowledging their significance. He added, “Matters related to user-access, website policy, and related facets fall within the purview of organizations availing services from the NIC.”
For the Lok Sabha’s official website, the House secretariat relies on services provided by the NIC, with direct accountability to the Speaker, Om Birla.
Minister Vaishnaw’s commitment holds weight, given that the ethics committee may necessitate technical assistance to examine the allegations made by Dubey and Jai Anant Dehadrai, a former associate and advocate of Moitra. Their claims suggest that Moitra facilitated unauthorized access to her parliamentary account, enabling Darshan Hiranandani to pose queries on her behalf. Furthermore, Dubey has alleged that Moitra’s account exhibited logins from Dubai, potentially compromising security.
The situation has raised pertinent questions, prompting Moitra to query, “Who is lying? Two days ago, the individual with alleged fraudulent credentials stated that NIC had already furnished details, including ‘Dubai’ logins, to the investigating agency. However, Ashwini Vaishnaw now states that NIC will supply information if requested by the Lok Sabha or the Ethics Committee. The BJP may engage in a campaign against me, but perhaps Adani+Godda are not the best strategists!”
In a separate incident from August 2022, Dubey, along with his two sons and BJP MP Manoj Tiwari, were embroiled in allegations of entering the Air Traffic Control (ATC) room at Deoghar airport and pressuring staff to grant clearance for a flight beyond the permitted hours. Subsequently, the Jharkhand police registered an FIR involving nine individuals, including Dubey, his sons, Tiwari, and the airport director.
Moitra has indicated that she has not yet been summoned by the ethics committee. In her statement on October 21, she urged the NIC to disclose all information concerning MPs publicly, demonstrating their physical presence at locations from where their personal assistants, researchers, interns, or staff accessed their accounts.
Meanwhile, the case involving Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) MP Danish Ali, who filed a complaint before the Privileges Committee of the Lok Sabha against BJP MP Ramesh Bidhuri, remains unresolved. Ali’s complaint, stemming from Bidhuri’s alleged use of Islamophobic slurs, defamatory language, and abusive remarks against Ali on the floor of the Lok Sabha, has yet to be adjudicated. Reportedly, Bidhuri virtually appeared before the Privileges Committee in response to the complaint. Notably, Ali had remarked on the asymmetrical handling of complaints, with complainants and accused being called unevenly. Moitra highlighted this discrepancy, emphasizing that the accused was called before the complainant in Danish Ali’s case, while in her case, she, as the accused, has not yet been summoned to provide her perspective. Instead, the complainants have been called for further inquiry.