Kunal Ghosh, a prominent figure in the Trinamool Congress, expressed strong reservations regarding the Lok Sabha ethics panel's recent summoning of MP Mahua Moitra, characterizing it as an act with clear political motives. Moitra, herself a member of the Trinamool Congress, has been called to appear before the panel on November 2 concerning her involvement in a contentious cash-for-query case.
Ghosh raised critical questions about the ethics committee's decision not to grant an extension for Moitra's appearance. He voiced his concerns by stating, "Why is the ethics committee in such a rush to maintain the November 2 date? This move appears to be politically motivated."
In addition, Ghosh pointed to the unresolved case of BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari, which has been pending with the ethics panel for a staggering six years after the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) filed a case against him. The delay in addressing this case, juxtaposed with the urgency in Moitra's case, raised suspicions of selective treatment and pressure exerted on the Trinamool Congress MP, according to Ghosh.
It's noteworthy that Moitra had initially been summoned for an appearance on October 31. However, she requested additional time to prepare and declared her availability only after November 5. Subsequently, the Lok Sabha ethics panel extended the appearance date to November 2 but firmly stated that it would not entertain any further requests for an extension.
Recently, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and Supreme Court lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai presented "oral evidence" to the panel against Mahua Moitra on Thursday. In response, Moitra emphasized the importance of a "fair hearing and an adequate opportunity" to defend herself against the "false, malicious, and defamatory accusations" made against her by Dubey and Dehadrai. She also requested permission to "cross-examine" businessman Darshan Hiranandani.
The cash-for-query controversy originated when Nishikant Dubey accused Mahua Moitra, citing a letter from Dehadrai, claiming that there was "irrefutable" evidence of bribes being exchanged between Moitra and businessman Darshan Hiranandani. The allegations further contended that 50 out of the 61 questions posed by Moitra in Parliament were geared towards "protecting or perpetuating the business interests" of Darshan Hiranandani and his business conglomerate.
