Businessman Darshan Hiranandani has recently submitted a signed affidavit to the Ethics Committee of Parliament, corroborating claims made by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lawmaker Nishikant Dubey. In his complaint to the Lok Sabha speaker, Dubey alleged that Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra had received money and gifts in exchange for posing specific questions in Parliament, a practice he termed “cash for query.”
Hiranandani admitted to providing Moitra with information to formulate questions targeting the Adani Group, a prominent conglomerate in India. He also confessed to gifting her expensive luxury items and supporting the renovation of her official bungalow. Furthermore, Hiranandani claimed that Moitra had shared her Parliamentary login credentials with him, allowing him to post questions on her behalf.
Dubey’s complaint was rooted in a letter from lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai, a former friend of Moitra, who also wrote to the Central Bureau of Investigation regarding the matter. The allegations in Dubey’s letter and Hiranandani’s affidavit have drawn the attention of the Parliament’s ethics committee, which is currently investigating the claims. If Moitra is found guilty, she could face expulsion from Parliament.
In response to these allegations, Moitra vehemently denied the charges, characterizing them as part of an establishment-led campaign to discredit her and other political leaders who dare to question the Adani Group’s practices.
This controversy has ignited a legal battle, with Moitra filing lawsuits against Nishikant Dubey, Jai Anant Dehadrai, and several media organizations, including Hindustan Times, which reported on Dubey’s complaint.
The situation continues to evolve, with Moitra questioning the authenticity of Hiranandani’s affidavit. The allegations have cast a shadow over the integrity of the parliamentary process, prompting concerns about unethical practices and the potential consequences for those involved.
As the Ethics Committee of Parliament investigates these allegations, the outcome remains uncertain, but the controversy underscores the need for transparency and ethical conduct within the Indian parliamentary system.