December 8, 2023
Kalyan Banerjee’s intervention during the presentation of the Ethics Committee report seeking Mahua Moitra’s expulsion from Parliament
Hon. Speaker, Sir, kindly see that a fair trial would only be there when an affected person is being heard. If an affected is not being heard, there cannot be any fair trial.… There cannot be any fair trial. Sir, with great respect to you, whatever I am saying, kindly, do not take it as an exception. This is the Parliament. We are the Members. Today, we are deciding the rights of a person. When we are deciding the rights of a person, then we are all acting as a quasi-judicial body. Before a quasi-judicial body, an affected person should be heard. … I would like to request you to kindly allow Sushri Mahua Moitra to be heard. That is the request that I am going to make. When we speak, there would be a privilege issue against us but they keep on disturbing us every day.… This is the fundamental principle of law that a person against whom the chargesheet has been brought and persons who are bringing these charges, these charges should be established in according with the procedure of law. Who is the main person? The mainperson is Darshan Hiranandani. Who has relied upon his statement? His name is Jai Anant Dehadrai. Who has brought it? He is one of the hon. Members, Nishikant Dubey. On what basis is it going on? It is on the basis of an affidavit of Darshan Hiranandani. His affidavit has been brought. Darshan Hiranandani has not even been brought as a witness. His statement has not been testified. This is his affidavit. No affidavit can be relied upon unless that person comes and says: “This is my affidavit. Whatever I am saying or whatever contents are there, are correct.” … Thereafter, Sir, in a quasi-judicial proceeding, right of cross-examination should be given. That is called a fair hearing. The right of hearing is not a fanciful thing. It has to be made a meaningful right. .… The way they had made these allegations whether it is Jai Anant Dehadrai or Darshan Hiranandani or Nishikant Dubey, in the same way Mahua Moitra is having a right to cross-examine each and every person. .… But, that has not been allowed. What has happened earlier is not the point, the point is that the law is not made on an island, it is being made in our country on the basis of the interpretations given by the Supreme Court of India. .… It has been clearly said in various judgements given by the Supreme Court that if an affected person has not been given an opportunity to defend himself or herself in a proper manner, then, it is a violation of the principle of natural justice. Theprinciples of natural justice are implicit in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. … Therefore, Sir, not only the right to be heard is being violated but Mahua Moitra ji’s right as protected under Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been violated by the Ethics Committee and also today by the House itself. There is a violation. … The Constitutional violation is being made. … Sir, the 2005 cash-for-query case is being repeatedly referred to here. Kindly come to Page No. 18 of the Report of that Committee. Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal was appointed as the Chairman of the said Committee. At Serial No. 12, it says: “The Committee examined Shri Anirudh Bahal, Ms. Suhasini Raj and Shri Kumar Badal, representatives of the Portal Cobrapost.com.” … सर, आपको टाइि देना होगा। Sir, they were examined. … Here, Mr. Hiranandani has not been examined at all. … It is just an eyewash. … Hon. Minister, you always have the right to speak but kindly excuse me. Sir, please give me time. You are not allowing Mahua Moitra ji to speak. Kindly allow me to speak. … Now, Sir, I am coming to what this Report says. At serial No. 43, whatever has been said, who has said it? … It has not been said by Shri Darshan Hiranandani. … What Shri Jai has said, everything has been written here. … Sir, I have some more points. Kindly give me a chance to speak. … Today, I am just praying before you to kindly render justice to me. Sir, it has relied upon Section 43 of the Information Technology Act. It has been said that it is a violation of Section 43. Let us assume for argument’s sake that the allegations are correct. Where does Section 43 say that if password is given to anyone, it is an offence under the Information Technology Act? If anyone uses my computer without my consent, then Section 43 would be applicable here. But that has not been done here. … Sir, please, for God’s sake, give me some time to speak. Sir, kindly see the recommendation and the conclusion part. … According to that, it has been proved that cash has been taken. Where is that? … Where is this finding based on facts? How much cash has been taken? … It is not based on evidence. … Now, I am coming to a very important question. … I will just conclude. … With great respect to the hon. Speaker and to all the hon. Members of this House, I would like to say that this House does not have the power to remove someone as a Member. The Constitution has provided a provision for disqualification. This provision of disqualification has been provided by the Constitution in Tenth Schedule under Article 102. It does not come within that. You have the power to suspend a Member under Rule 374 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha itself. Therefore, let us assume for arguments sake, there is no power with the House itself to expel or to remove Sushri Mahua Moitra. The Constitution does not permit this. The rule does not permit this. Even if any precedent has been there, that is contrary to the rules. No precedent or no rule can stand above the Constitutional provisions.
