New Delhi: The Supreme Court, in response to a petition by Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra, seeks a reply from the Lok Sabha secretary general regarding her expulsion from the Lower House. The expulsion, purportedly over ethical misconduct, has triggered legal ripples, prompting Moitra to challenge the decision.Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta acknowledge the complexity of the case, raising questions about the courts jurisdiction and the scope of judicial review concerning a legislative decision. Despite agreeing to delve into Moitras plea, the bench maintains an open stance on critical issues.Notice issued to LS secretary generalWhile issuing a notice to the LS secretary general, the bench keeps the door ajar for future debates on jurisdiction. A response is expected within three weeks, and the next hearing is slated for March. The court, however, refrains from allowing Moitra to partake in House proceedings during this interim period.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the LS secretary general, questions the viability of judicial review in matters involving internal discipline decisions of a sovereign organ of the State. In contrast, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Moitras legal representative, laments the expulsion, asserting it as an attempt to stifle the Oppositions voice.National security concerns raisedMehta raises the spectre of national security, contending that Moitras alleged act of sharing login credentials with an unauthorised individual in Dubai poses a threat. However, the bench dismisses Mehtas request to withhold a formal notice, asserting its issuance and leaving the jurisdictional issues open for future deliberation.Singhvi urges the court to consider Moitras interim plea to participate in House proceedings, but the bench declines, expressing doubts about the extent of examination and refraining from rendering a decision on the application.Why was Mahua Moitra expelledMoitra, representing Krishnanagar in West Bengal, faced expulsion on December 8 over allegations of involvement in cash-for-query charges. She challenges the ethics committees recommendations that led to her expulsion, citing substantial illegality and arbitrariness.Moitra contends that the ethics committees findings lacked adherence to principles of natural justice, highlighting her denial of the opportunity to cross-examine key individuals. Singhvi argues that the expulsion was solely based on Moitra sharing her login credentials, without proof of quid pro quo or illicit monetary gains.The bench questions the feasibility of delving into the merits of the case. Singhvi counters by emphasising the severity of expelling Opposition MPs on seemingly flimsy grounds and questions whether an MP can be penalised for delegating work.The Supreme Courts intervention in this case introduces a layer of complexity to the political drama surrounding Moitras expulsion. The courts cautious approach, issuing notices while keeping jurisdictional questions open, sets the stage for a legal battle in the coming months. The ramifications of this case extend beyond Moitras individual expulsion, touching upon broader issues of parliamentary conduct and judicial review.
