In response to the expulsion of Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra from her position as a Lok Sabha MP, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey conveyed his sentiments on Saturday, describing it as a day not to celebrate but to lament. Despite appearing outwardly content, Dubey clarified that the expulsion was disheartening, particularly considering the allegations of corruption and implications for national security that led to this decision.
While Nishikant Dubey wore a smile, he underscored that the removal of a parliamentarian for purported corruption and issues related to national security brought him a sense of distress. He reflected on the recent events, emphasizing that Friday was not marked by joy but rather by a somber acknowledgment of the expulsion.
The grounds for Mahua Moitra's expulsion stem from allegations raised by Dubey himself, asserting that she had received gifts and cash from businessman Darshan Hiranandani in exchange for posing questions in the Lok Sabha. The expulsion decided through a voice vote in the Lok Sabha, followed the conclusion of the Parliamentary Ethics Committee's determination that Mahua Moitra's conduct was deemed "immoral and indecent" for an MP.
Expressing his perspective on the matter, Dubey maintained that the expulsion was a matter of concern rather than celebration, emphasizing the gravity of the accusations surrounding corruption and national security implications. The decision, however, was met with a strong response from Mahua Moitra, who criticized the Ethics Committee, alleging its misuse to suppress opposition and acting as a tool to coerce submission. Moitra contended that the punishment lacked substantiated evidence and accused the committee of finding her guilty of breaching a non-existent code of ethics.
In addition, Moitra criticized the Ethics Committee for not allowing Darshan Hiranandani to testify orally, despite him submitting an affidavit. Hiranandani's affidavit detailed that Moitra had shared her Parliamentary login credentials with him, enabling him to pose questions on her behalf. While Ethics Committee members argued that Hiranandani's sworn affidavit sufficed and did not require oral testimony, Moitra contested this decision, suggesting an inadequacy in the overall investigative process.
Â
