Context: A Member of Parliament(MP) was dismissed from the Lok Sabha after the House accepted the Ethics Committee’s report, which found her guilty of engaging in unethical conduct.

Mahua Moitra Expelled as MP in Cash For Query Case

• Cash for Query: Mahua Moitra was accused of taking bribes in exchange for asking questions critical of the government in Parliament.
• Contempt of House: She was also declared to be in “Contempt of the House” for sharing the login information for her private and secret account on the legislative website.
  • A Contempt of the House can be defined as any act that:
  • Causes an obstruction in the conduct of proceedings of the House.
  • Obstructs the performance of functions by any officer or member of the House.
  • Any other act that directly or indirectly has such an effect.
• Legal Inquiry: It also called for a legal institutional inquiry by the Government in the case.

What is a ‘Cash for Query Case’?

• An allegation that someone accepted payment in exchange for asking questions in Parliament is known as a “cash for query” complaint.
• For Example “Cash for query” scam led to the conviction of eleven former Members of Parliament in 2005 for taking cash to ask questions in Parliament.

Timeline Of The Mahua Moitra Case

• 15 October: BJP MP Nishikant Dubey addressed a letter to the Lok Sabha Speaker accusing TMC MP Mahua Moitra of accepting bribes from Businessman Hiranandani in exchange for raising parliamentary questions.
• 19 October: Hiranandani in an affidavit to the Ethics Committee claimed that Moitra provided him with her parliament login credentials so that he could post questions directly on her behalf when required.
• 31 October: Lok Sabha Ethics Committee summons Mahua Moitra.
• 10 November: The Ethics Committee submitted its report to the Speaker, recommending Mahua Moitra’s expulsion. 
• 8 December: Ethics Committee report tabled in parliament. Ms Moitra was expelled following the tabling of the report.

Know more about Lok Sabha Ethics Committee Investigates MP for Cash For Query here. 

What challenges are associated with the Ethics Committee report?

• Authority to Inquire: The standard process for resolution of issues about privilege violations is taken by the Lok Sabha Committee on Privileges. The Ethics Committee can only investigate improper activity by MPs.
  • This case should have been inquired into by the Privileges Committee rather than the Ethics Committee.
  • Breach of privilege: If an MP has asked questions and has done parliamentary work on behalf of somebody who has paid a consideration, it is a serious breach of privilege and contempt of the House. 
    • A breach of privilege occurs when any person commits an act that violates the privileges granted to the members of Parliament or the Parliament itself. 
  • Penalising Non-Members: The Privileges Committee has the authority to penalise non-members. In this case, the Privileges Committee should look into Hiranandani’s alleged bribery of an MP. 
• No clear distinction between privileges and misconduct: Objections to committee selection are also due to the lack of clear distinction between what constitutes privileges and misconduct. 
  • For example, bribery could trigger privilege proceedings, as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in PV Narasimha Rao’s case (1998). 

• • However, in the 2005 “cash for query” scandal, bribery was categorised as misconduct by the inquiry committee. 
• Disclosure of e-portal login credentials: There are no clear guidelines prohibiting MPs from exchanging login credentials since the practice of online submission of questions is recent.
  • In the absence of a regulation, the scrutiny of a particular MP appears disproportionate and excessive. 
• Accepting large quantities of cash and gifts: The Committee arrived at a conclusive decision based on an affidavit that failed to address the vital issues of financial transactions and detailed information about lavish gifts.

Way Forward

• Single committee for privileges and ethics: As advised by the Committee on Privileges of the Eleventh Lok Sabha, privileges and ethics are interconnected and should be dealt with by a single committee.ie., the Committee on Ethics and Privileges. 
• Amendment of Lok Sabha rules:  The rule should have been amended when online submissions were allowed. Had there been a rule, some safeguards against violations would have been specified as well.
• Making a Distinction between Privilege and Misconduct: There is a need for a well-defined framework regarding what constitutes privileges and misconduct and what is the line of demarcation between them. 
• Code of Ethics for Ministers: Mahua Moitra has been found guilty of breaching a code of ethics that does not exist and there was no evidence of cash or gift given to her.
  • Thus,  it is necessary that in addition to the Code of Conduct, there should be a Code of Ethics so that Ministers uphold the highest standards of constitutional and ethical conduct.

Conclusion:

The expulsion of Mahua Moitra from the Lok Sabha in the Cash for Query case highlights the need for a comprehensive framework distinguishing between privileges and misconduct, advocating for a unified committee on ethics and privileges, and emphasizing the necessity of a clear Code of Ethics for elected representatives.