Trinamul Congress MP Mahua Moitra on Tuesday asked Lok Sabha Ethics Committee chairman Vinod Kumar Sonkar to allow her to cross-examine lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai and businessman Darshan Hiranandani in the “cash-for-query” allegations raised against her.

In a letter to Sonkar on Tuesday, Moitra said: “The complainant Shri Dehadrai has provided NO documentary evidence to back his allegations in either his written complaint and neither could he provide any evidence in his oral hearing. In keeping with the principles of natural justice, I wish to exercise my right to cross-examine Shri Dehadrai.”

In the case of Hiranandani — who is the alleged “bribe-giver” and is said to have given a suo motu affidavit to the committee — Moitra pointed out that the document has “scant details and no documentary evidence whatsoever” and demanded that he be called to depose before the panel and provide a “documented itemised inventory with amounts, date, etc”.

Again citing natural justice, she underscored her wish to exercise her right to cross-examine Hiranandani, adding that any inquiry without such cross-examination by her would be “incomplete and unfair”.

Moitra alleged “double standard” by the Privileges & Ethics Branch of the Lok Sabha for not allowing her the specified extension she had sought in responding to the Ethics Committee’s summons while giving BJP MP Ramesh Bidhuri indefinite time to appear before it in connection with his verbal abuse of another MP in Parliament. Pointing out that the committee had insisted she appear before it on November 2 instead of November 4 as requested by her, she cited the Bidhuri case.

“In direct contrast, a very different approach has been adopted in the case of Shri Ramesh Bidhuri, MP, BJP, who has a very serious complaint of hate speech… pending against him in the Privileges and Ethics branch made by… Shri Danish Ali, MP. Shri Bidhuri was summoned on October 10, 2023, to provide oral evidence and informed the Committee that he was away campaigning in Rajasthan and would not be attending. No further date of his hearing has been given so far. I wish to place on record that these double standards reek of political motives and do little to enhance the credibility of the Privileges & Ethics Branch.”

While maintaining that she would appear before the committee on Thursday, Moitra questioned whether the panel was the appropriate forum to examine allegations of alleged criminality since parliamentary panels do not have criminal jurisdiction.