The ongoing public dispute involving Trinamool Congress Member of Parliament (MP) Mahua Moitra, Bharatiya Janata Party leader Nishikant Dubey, and Supreme Court advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai “will not exert any influence” on the proceedings of the parliamentary ethics committee, as stated by panel chairman Vinod Kumar Sonkar on Friday.
The committee is currently investigating allegations made by BJP leader Nishikant Dubey, accusing Mahua Moitra of seeking financial incentives and favors in exchange for raising specific parliamentary queries. These allegations were brought to the attention of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla through a complaint filed by Dehadrai.
Vinod Kumar Sonkar emphasized that external events and discussions are not relevant to the case under consideration by the panel. He further revealed that on October 26, the panel will review the evidence and documentation presented by Dubey and Dehadrai, who are scheduled to provide their testimonies on Thursday.
Following the submission of documents by Dubey and Dehadrai, the panel will assess the material and decide on the appropriate course of action. If necessary, they may refer the matter to relevant authorities for further investigation.
Regarding the deposition of Mahua Moitra, Sonkar clarified that it is imperative to hear all parties involved in the case, and the scheduling of the next steps will be determined shortly.
However, Moitra expressed her objections to Sonkar’s statements to the media and pointed out specific Lok Sabha rules that allow panel chairpersons to engage with the media. She also questioned the leak of an “affidavit” and suggested that an inquiry should be conducted to determine how it was disclosed to the media.
Notably, the affidavit in question was submitted by Darshan Hiranandani, the businessman named in Dubey’s complaint, who supported the allegations outlined in Dubey’s letter. Moitra asserted her willingness to answer questions from investigative bodies and the ethics committee but expressed disinterest in participating in what she referred to as a media circus trial orchestrated by the BJP.
In response, Nishikant Dubey mentioned a similar situation involving another politician, Pankaj Mishra, from Jharkhand, who faced legal consequences after frequently welcoming the ED and CBI on social media and later being incarcerated on money laundering charges. Dubey seemed to draw a parallel between Mishra’s situation and the allegations against Moitra.
Moitra refuted Hiranandani’s affidavit and raised questions about its authenticity and motives. She viewed the content of the affidavit as absurd, particularly the assertion that a successful businessman like Hiranandani would yield to her demands due to fear, given his substantial influence and access to top government officials.
In summary, the public spat between these political figures has raised concerns about ethical conduct and the integrity of parliamentary proceedings, with the parliamentary ethics committee set to play a pivotal role in resolving these allegations.
