“Pre-fixed match”, “A Kangaroo Court”, “Death of parliamentary democracy”.
These are the words used by the deputy for the Trinamool Congress (TMC), Mahua Moitra, after the Ethics Committee of Lok Sabha approved the recommendation of his expulsion of the Parliament in the cash scam. The report was approved in a divided verdict, the president of the ethics committee, Vinod Sonkar, saying that six members had voted in favor and four members were against the recommendation of the expulsion of Moitra by Lok Sabha.
The four members of the Committee, who rejected the report, said in their dissent that the panel had led its probe in “inconvenience” and with “a total lack of convenience”.
The deputy for Firebrand also rejected the report’s conclusions, saying to the news agency Pti“Even if they express me in this Lok Sabha, I will be back in the next Lok Sabha with a greater mandate.
“This is a pre-fixed match by a kangaroo court, which is not surprised or consequence. But the wider message is that for India, it is the death of parliamentary democracy, “said Moitra.
But what does this report really mean for moitra? Is it immediately expelled from Lok Sabha?
Here’s what we know.
What the report said about Moitra
The future of Mahua Moitra is uncertain to this day because it is now waiting for the next steps of this cash register for the SCAM. However, everything goes back to the allegations brought against her by the deputy of the BJP, Nishikant Dubey, and the lawyer of the Supreme Court Jai Annant Dehadrai, who had allegedly allegedly accepted money and gifts from the man Darshan Hiranandani business as fucking fucking questions in Lok Sabha.
Also read: “Jilted ex”, politicians and businessman: the mahua moitra men of the TMC are against
While Moitra vehemently denied the accusations, the case was taken into account by the Ethics Committee of Lok Sabha, which led an audience on November 2, during which Moitra was out, alleging that the president, Vinod Sonkar of the BJP, had asked him “Personal and contrary to ethics questions” and submitted it to a “proverbial vastraharan” (stripping).
After that on November 9, the panel met again and it is here that the members of a split verdict recommended for its expulsion. The report condemned Moitra for “conduct contrary to ethics” and “contempt at home” for having shared his Lok Sabha connection titles with Hiranandani.
The panel recommended a “severe sanction”, urging the government of India to conduct an “intense, legal institutional investigation” in “time linked to time”.
However, the dissident members of the panel argued that Moitra had not had a fair chance of defending himself. The dissent note, according to a Indian Express Report, said that Moitra did not have the possibility of opposing the businessman Darshan Hiranandani, with whom she is accused of sharing her connection and her password from Parliament.
“The alleged pot-brown approval Mr. Hiranandani is a key player in this case, after having given a vague affidavit” SUO motu “without any detail. Without the oral proof and the counter-examination of Mr. Hiranandani, as required by Ms. Moitra in writing and, in fact, as required by the law of a fair hearing, this investigation process is a farce and a “ Proverbial kangaroo ”, according to dissent notes.
One of the notes indicates that the recommendation of the panel for its expulsion was wrong and was developed “only for political reasons”.
Moitra speaks
Moitra remained provocative even after the news announced that the panel had recommended his expulsion from the house.
She called on the procedures of the Ethics Committee similar to a Kangaroo court and criticized the panel for violating her mandate.
“From the first day, it was a kangaroo court. There is no evidence, no trial, nothing. They called me for interrogation, which was not complete because the president did not allow others to question me, “she said.
In addition, Moitra said: “The mandate of the panel cannot be expelled.”
“If indeed, it was a serious liquidity case for a request, it is a question of violation of privilege and should have gone to the Committee of Privileges. The mandate of the Ethics Committee is to examine conduct contrary to ethics. It is a typical ax work. Last night, he was disclosed to the media, “she said.
She also stressed that there was no evidence against her. “They said they had found no evidence. So, if you have no evidence, then on what reason do you express me or do you recommend my expulsion? This only shows their true intention, “she said.
The next steps
In accordance with the rules of the Ethics Committee – made up in Chapter XXA of the rules of procedural and business conduct in the Lok Sabha in August 2015 – The committee’s recommendations in the form of a report will now be presented to the speaker who cut -The in the house.
According to rule 316th, after the presentation of the report, the president or any member of the committee or any other member may move that the report is taken into account, after which the speaker can ask the question in the chamber.
The rules also indicate that the speaker can allow a debate on the question not exceeding half an hour.
Once a debate is made, the government can advance a request in voting on the expulsion of the members. If it is elected in favor, the member will be expelled from the Chamber.
However, according to the Economical timeMoitra can contest this decision before the Court of Law.
This is in particular the first case where the Lok Sabha ethics committee, which arrived two years ago and normally hears complaints largely, recommended the expulsion of a deputy. In 2005, 11 deputies were expelled from Parliament in another cash affair for the request, but these evictions were recommended by the Rajya Sabha Ethics Committee and an investigation committee of Lok Sabha.
New rules to the purpose
According to a report by Hindustan timeThe incident also prompted the ethics committee to ask President OM Birla to frame a set of rules to verify the unruly conduct of deputies.
Noting that Parliament has experienced numerous cases of unruly conduct, the ethics committee considers that current rules are ineffective to stop such behavior. “The Committee wishes to call on the honorable speaker, who is the goalkeeper of the Chamber, to consider cracking a new set of rules which can be a firewall to contain the unruly conduct / behavior of these deputies”, the committee recommended in its report project, according to Hindustan time.
With agency entries
firstpost
