Cash-for-Query Case Takes Serious Turn with Industrialist Affirming having Bribed Mahua Moitra

Manas Dasgupta

NEW DELHI, Oct 20: The alleged “cash for query” case against Mahua Moitra has taken a serious turn with the company claimed to have bribed the Trinamool Congress MP submitted an affidavit confirming the charge.

Though Ms Moitra claimed that Darshan Hiranandani, a real estate company in direct competition with the Adani group, filed the affidavit “under pressure” from the Prime Minister’s Office and questioned the Parliamentary Ethics Committee how the affidavit had reached the media, the committee chaired by the BJP MP Vinod Sonkar, said the charge was “serious” and the committee would take all necessary steps to find the truth.

In a related development, Moitra’s defamation case against the BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, who first brought the charge against Ms Moitra, lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai, who informed Dubey about the alleged bribe to Ms Moitra, and others, at the Delhi High Court was deferred till October 31 after her lawyer dissociated himself from the case.

Sonkar said the Ethics committee had received the affidavit by industrialist Darshan Hiranandani alleging that he bribed Ms Moitra to ask questions in the Parliament. He said the committee would conduct a comprehensive probe into all the charges.

In his affidavit, Mr Hiranandani claimed that Ms Moitra made frequent demands on him and asked him for various favours, including gifting her expensive luxury items. The businessman also alleged the MP had given him her Parliament login credentials and that she saw attacking the Adani Group as a way to become famous. Ms Moitra, in a detailed and pointed rebuttal, slammed Mr Hiranandani’s affidavit, alleging that the Prime Minister’s Office had pressured him into signing the document and then released it to the media.

BJP’s Nishikant Dubey brought forth the allegations in front of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla accusing the Trinamool leader of breach of parliamentary privilege, contempt of the House, and criminal conspiracy.

Sonkar said, “We have received Darshan Hiranandani’s affidavit. The committee will hear Mr Dubey’s complaint on October 26. He has been asked to present evidence in front of the committee.” Calling the allegations very serious, Mr Sonkar said the committee would first examine Mr Dubey’s letter and Mr Hiranandani’s affidavit. We will then also hear Ms Moitra’s version, who has vehemently denied the charges and said she was prepared for any inquiry.

“The allegations are very serious. The case has gone beyond the prima facie evidence which is why we are examining it,” Mr Sonkar said. Ms Moitra, the Lok Sabha MP representing Krishnanagar in West Bengal, has sought a permanent injunction against Mr Dubey, Mr Dehadrai, social media platform X, search engine Google, and YouTube and to restrain them from making, publishing, and circulating per se defamatory, ex facie false and malicious statements against her.

In the Delhi High Court, the case was postponed after her lawyer withdrew from the case citing a ‘conflict of interest.’ The withdrawal came after the court was informed by advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai that Ms Moitra’s lawyer Gopal Sankarnarayan contacted him over phone on Thursday night for withdrawing his complaint to the CBI against the Trinamool leader.

Ms Moitra has described Mr Dehadrai as a “jilted ex” who wants to get back at her. There is an ongoing tussle between Ms Moitra and Mr Dehadrai over their pet dog, Rottweiler Henry. In the last six months, Ms Moitra has filed multiple police complaints against Mr Dehadrai for alleged criminal trespass, theft, vulgar messages and abuse.

Mr Dehadrai had provided alleged evidence to BJP leader Nishikant Dubey of Ms Moitra accepting cash to ask questions in the Parliament. The ‘conflict of interest’ was brought up in court by Dehadrai. Justice Sachin Datta said he was “appalled” and said since Mr Sankarnarayan tried to play the role of a mediator, is he still eligible to appear in the matter?

“It’s something that you need to answer yourself. It’s your call,” the judge said, prompting Sankarnarayan to withdraw himself from the case.

Withdrawing from the case, Mr Sankarnarayan said, “I had reached out to him (Jai Anant Dehadrai) yesterday that is correct. I asked him is there any way of exploring a settlement, that’s all the conversation was about. Jai said he would get back to me, but he didn’t. I am no longer concerned to this case and have withdrawn from it.” The court listed the matter for further hearing on October 31, on reopening after Dussehra break.

Ms Moitra on Friday hit out at M Sonkar for ‘openly’ speaking to media before the complaint related to the ‘cash for query’ case was heard and asked how did the media have access to the affidavit filed by Hiranandani.

Taking to X, the TMC MP pointed out an excerpt from the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha where it is mentioned that the evidence given before the committee shall not be published by any member or anyone else until it has been laid on the table. Ms Moitra further asked for the committee chairman to first of all conduct an enquiry into how the Hiranandani affidavit found its way to the media. The “BJP’s 1 point agenda is to expel me from LS to shut me up on Adani,” she reiterated on the post.