MPs do accept gifts but does it amount to contempt of Parliament?

Mahua Moitra has been expelled by the Lok Sabha as member for breaching rules and compromising national security by sharing login credentials to the members’ portal. The rules, however, are non-existent and have never been framed. This will certainly be one of the grounds on which she will challenge the decision in the Supreme Court.

Former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha, PDT Achary, reiterated on Friday, 8 December that while the question is “whether giving someone the password and account details is against a set rule. There is no such rule in the Rule Book of the House. If there is no rule, how can it be said she violated the rule?”

Moitra has also argued that while she has been punished for violating the members’ code of ethics and for accepting ‘cash’ for asking questions in the House, there is no code that disallows members from accepting gifts from ‘friends’ and there is no evidence of any money trail. Indeed, the ethics committee has left it to the CBI to find the money trail. But then, how was she punished if there was no evidence of one?

Her explanations cut no ice with the ethics committee and she was of course not allowed to speak in the Lok Sabha. This will constitute another ground for her to challenge the decision. While House proceedings generally cannot be challenged in any court of law, the Supreme Court in 2007 had ruled that such immunity is not absolute and if procedures violate the fundamental rights of a citizen, they were not beyond judicial scrutiny.

Moitra had argued that while her estranged partner Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai had claimed in his complaint that she had accepted a sum of Rupees two crore in cash from her friend Darshan Hiranandani, he adduced no evidence. Hiranandani, after denying the charge initially, also does not mention about any cash transaction in his affidavit. While Moitra admitted to being a friend of Darshan and accepting the odd cosmetics as gift, she denied accepting any cash.

The ethics committee, however, found her guilty of committing contempt of the House by accepting gifts for asking questions. This opens up the question whether any other MP or MPs in general accept gifts from business houses, individual businessmen, foreign companies and diplomats and also public sector undertakings; and if they do, whether they too constitute contempt of the House.

It is hardly a secret that MPs are plied with gifts, even expensive gifts like watches, smart phones and tablets on their parliamentary tours, on festivals and quite possibly on their anniversaries. Should this then be included in the code of conduct for MPs and banned?

‘Cash for Query’ is a grave allegation and the ethics committee went into great length to prove that several questions asked by Moitra were related to sectors in which Hiranandani had invested or had business interests. It is open to argument whether asking a question in Parliament and depending upon the odd chance that it would be selected and answered by the government is the best way for business lobbies to get the information they require. Giving gifts to bureaucrats or ministers could achieve the result faster.

How many MPs are committing contempt of the House is the question.