AA Edit | Crime and punishment in Mahua Moitra saga

It is on the cards that the Lok Sabha Speaker would go by the recommendation of the Ethics Committee that MP Mahua Moitra be expelled from Parliament. The harsh reality of partisan politics in a hyper-publicised, alleged cash-for-query scam was reflected in a 6-4 vote, along party lines except for a suspended Congress MP voting for action based on a 500-page report.

Even so, the member, by her own admission, had shared her parliamentary system password and login details with Dubai resident and businessman Darshan Hiranandani. The panel concluded that Ms Moitra accepted “money — cash and kind, amenities and various other facilities” from her benefactor.

The member had also admitted to receiving help in her Dubai visits, making the case somewhat simpler for those who may have been thirsting to act against a high-profile voluble critic of the government. The point is those seen as mudslingers by those in power would have to ensure that all their dealings are above board, leaving no room for unethical acts or impropriety that could be used against them.

The case against Ms Moitra lending her ID for someone else to use, and a person from abroad at that, hence leading to easy assumptions that national security could have been endangered, was proven.

One charge was that 50 out of the 61 questions asked by Ms Moitra in Parliament sought information “with the intent of protecting or perpetuating business interests” of Mr Hiranandani. They had ostensibly little to do with the problems of the people of Kalyanpur.

As the breach of propriety in the use of entry into the parliamentary system, to be considered sacrosanct for elected representatives, was established from computer data, there was little wriggle room for the “accused” who is thought to be guilty of misdemeanour and subject to punishment.

It is no defence that other MPs may also be using aides to log in and record questions. It is arguable if the punishment does not fit the crime and that it is excessive. Expulsion from Parliament would also mean, as it was said in the top court, that the people should not go unrepresented when their directly elected representative is expelled from the legislature.

In the event of her being expelled by the Speaker willing to go with the highest recommendation of the ethics panel, she would be free to challenge it in court though it must be said that the actions of a Speaker generally lie in a realm that is not always clearly that of the courts.

A fallacy among popular elected representatives lies in exaggerating their ability to garner votes of their constituency into a licence to do just about anything on the premise that they ought to be judged only in the people’s court.

To get elected to a legislature is no licence to commit illegalities. Politicians have learnt this at their own expense at times, though by playing the justice system and compounding the delays, some of them could stick to power. The difference is that those in power enjoy a privilege which those stripped of it cannot.  Therein lies the dilemma of being Mohua Moitra.