Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, who is under the lens of the parliamentary ethics committee in the alleged cash for query controversy, has demanded that she should be allowed to grill businessman Darshan Hiranandani. But, government sources indicated why this is unreasonable and against laid-down rules of Parliament.
Moitra has written to the chairman of the ethics panel, Vinod Kumar Sonkar, seeking more time to appear before it while arguing that she should be allowed to “cross-examine” Hiranandani, given the “seriousness of the allegations” against her and the “principles of natural justice”.
According to government sources, Parliament Rules and Procedures clearly define a witness and the protection provided to them. At the first sitting, the committee – on a conduct of a member in what is known as the Mudgal case – had decided to seek the speaker’s directions on whether Mudgal or his counsel can be given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses other than those called by him. Remember, Hiranandani has not yet been asked to appear before the panel.
The speaker’s direction, which is cited as precedent in the rulebook, states: It is a “court of honour and not a court of law in the strict sense of the term”. The rules as quoted further state: “It is not therefore bound by technical rules.”
What’s more? What can be construed as a further dampener for Moitra, the rules also elaborated “excessive cross-examination eventually turns into a battle of wits” in regular courts that is not desirable in a “court of honour”.
The Speaker, whose views will now guide how this hearing goes from here, had said back then that this does not mean the counsel appearing in the case is “debarred from putting any questions”.
But, there is a twist. Firstly, Hiranandani has not yet been asked to appear before the committee. He has voluntarily sent a sworn affidavit. And, more importantly, while it mentions that the panel members may “permit” asking questions to witnesses, it will have to have the “permission of the chairman” – in this case, Sonkar.
“I wish to place on record that any inquiry without the oral evidence of Hiranandani will be incomplete, unfair and akin to holding a proverbial ‘kangaroo court’…” Moitra wrote in her letter to Sonkar.
The complainant, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, along with advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai recorded their statements before the panel.
“I have told the truth before the committee. All members of the committee enquired from me cordially. I answered all that was asked of me,” Dehadrai said after his meeting with the committee.
On Thursday (October 26), Dubey is learnt to have told the ethics committee that it was an “open and shut” case and Moitra should be disqualified. Sonkar, whose “permission” is crucial for Moitra going forward, is exploring options for the committee to seek assistance from the ministries of home affairs and IT in probing the allegations against her.
Comments
0 comment