The Inter-Parliamentary Union, a global organization for national parliaments, has remarked the expulsion of Mahua Moitra, the Trinamool MP from Krishnagar, in 2023 was “not founded in law.”
“The universal and inviolable nature of the legal principle of nulla poena sine lege, whereby no one may be held guilty of any offence on account of any act or omission that did not constitute an offence at the time when it was committed; and cannot but conclude, in light of information available to it, that the decision to expel Moitra from parliament was not founded in law,” reads a report by the IPU’s Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians.
Recalling the Universal Declaration on Democracy adopted by it in 1997, IPU stated, “Is concerned by the allegation that Moitra was expelled in retaliation for her oversight work in seeking answers on serious allegations of corruption, collusion and fraud, which have led to legal action in several jurisdictions.”
The decision was adopted by the Committee for the Protection of Human Rights of Parliamentarians which met last month in Geneva for its 176th session.
In the four-page report, the IPU expressed particular concern that the first time MP, who is among the foremost voices against the Narendra Modi government and led the opposition’s charge on crony capitalism, “was sanctioned in the absence of any breach of the law or applicable parliamentary rules.”
In December 2023, Mahua, then a first-time MP and one of the most vocal critics of Narendra Modi and had relentlessly pursued the Modi government’s alleged favouritism to select industrialists, was expelled from the Lok Sabha, on the recommendations of the ethics committee led by BJP MP Vinod Kumar Sonkar. A BJP MP Nishikant Dubey along with lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai had complained to the committee alleging that Mahua had accepted bribes from businessman Darshan Hiranandani to raise questions in the parliament and had also shared the login credentials of her official Lok Sabha email.
The IPU also believes, “A disproportionate sanction in such a context is likely to send a chilling effect to the opposition.”
In its 1997 resolution on democracy the IPU had stated, “Institutions and processes of democracy must accommodate the participation of all people” to “safeguard diversity, pluralism and the right to be different.”
The IPU also expressed concern over the functioning of the ethics committee (led by BJP MP Vinod Kumar Sonkar) which had decided to expel Mahua.
“Is nonetheless concerned by the allegations brought forward by the complainant, including the fact that the vote on Moitra’s expulsion took place on the basis of a contentious report adopted without consensus and without her being given the right to express herself in a case related to her, as well as by allegations that she had been subjected to discriminatory and prejudicial treatment by Sonkar, the chairperson of the ethics committee,” the report states.
During one of the meetings of the ethics committee, Mahua and five other MPs from the Opposition had walked out objecting to alleged “irrelevant, indecent and unethical” questions.
In his complaint Dubey had alleged, Mahua’s sharing login credentials had compromised “national security.”
Acknowledging the national security concerns, the IPU observed, “The regulation of cybersecurity related to the use of parliamentary online portal is the collective responsibility of parliament as an institution.”
The IPU also said several MPs the committee had questioned had revealed that the sharing of login details was a common practice in the Lok Sabha.
“Moitra was stripped of her seat in parliament, an extremely serious punishment and cannot but reach the conclusion, on the basis of information submitted to it by both parties, that even if Moitra’s expulsion had been in conformity with applicable rules and legal principles, such a sanction would be wholly disproportionate, as it not only deprived Moitra of her right to exercise her parliamentary mandate, but also deprived her electorate of representation in parliament.”
It has asked the Indian parliament to ensure that the rights of Mahua and other women MPs in both the houses are protected. The IPU also expressed concern over Mahua’s remaining a target of the ruling BJP since her re-election in last summer’s Lok Sabha polls.
“(The IPU) is concerned by the fact that after her re-election, Moitra was threatened and subjected to stigmatizing language on the floor of the Lok Sabha, and by the complainant’s allegation that no action had been taken in that regard; and affirms that freedom of expression is absolutely essential to the parliamentary mandate and that the exercise of this right includes not only statements that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also those that may offend, shock or disturb others.”
While the report is being sent to the office of the Lok Sabha Speaker, the IPU will continue to investigate the complaint filed by the Krishnagar MP.