On 11th March, the Lok Sabha Secretariat asserted its position in the Supreme Court on the expulsion of Mahua Moitra from the Trinamool Congress. The case, stemming from the “cash-for-query” controversy, explores the limits of parliamentary privilege and judicial review.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On Monday(11th March),the Lok Sabha Secretariat strongly defended the expulsion of Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra in the Supreme Court. This matter, stemming from the “cash-for-query” case, explores the intricate balance between parliamentary privilege and judicial review boundaries.
The Secretariat, in a detailed affidavit, argued that Moitra’s plea challenging her expulsion is “wholly misconceived, premature and bereft of any merit, and is outside the purview of Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.” This statement underscores the parliamentary defense based on Article 122 of the Constitution, which essentially shields parliamentary proceedings from judicial scrutiny, emphasizing the sovereignty of legislative processes.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court|| Set to Review Plea Regarding Restraining the Center’s Appointment of New ECs
Article 122 of the Constitution of India establishes the following principles:
- The validity of any proceedings within Parliament shall not be subject to challenge on the grounds of purported procedural irregularities.
- Officers or members of Parliament, empowered by the Constitution to regulate parliamentary procedure, conduct business, or uphold order, are exempt from the jurisdiction of any court regarding the exercise of these powers.
The case against Moitra stems from allegations made by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, who accused her of engaging in unethical practices by asking questions in Parliament in return for cash and gifts from businessman Darshan Hiranandani. The controversy escalated when it was revealed that Moitra allegedly shared her parliamentary login credentials with Hiranandani, a move that the Lok Sabha Secretariat claims could pose “national security hazards” and potentially cripple the functioning of the Parliament.
The affidavit elaborates on the constitutional provisions, stating:
“As such, proceedings of the Parliament (and its constituents) cannot be called into question alleging any irregularity of procedure and the House of the People is the sole judge of the lawfulness of proceedings before it.”
This highlights the principle that the internal mechanisms and decisions of the Parliament are beyond the reach of judicial intervention, a doctrine meant to preserve the separation of powers within the Indian political system.
Furthermore, the Secretariat expressed concerns over the potential risks associated with sharing sensitive login information, which could expose the parliamentary system to cyberattacks and undermine the integrity and independence of its functioning. These arguments reflect the broader issues of security and privacy in the digital age, especially within the context of governmental operations.
The “cash-for-query” scandal initially came to light through the advocacy of Nishikant Dubey and was further substantiated by a letter from advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, which presented “irrefutable evidence” of the alleged misconduct. Moitra’s subsequent admission that she shared her login details with Hiranandani for the purpose of posting questions on her behalf added fuel to the fire, leading to her appearance before the ethics committee.
The situation took a dramatic turn when Moitra, along with other opposition leaders, walked out of the ethics committee meeting, protesting against what they perceived as inappropriate questioning. The committee, however, proceeded to adopt its report, which ultimately led to Moitra’s expulsion from the Lok Sabha, marking a significant moment in her political career and in the ongoing discourse on parliamentary ethics and accountability.
