In the legal realms of New Delhi, the deliberative gavel of the Delhi High Court resonated on Thursday, February 22, as it maintained its verdict on a plea presented by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra. This plea sought to halt the alleged dissemination of “confidential and unverified information” by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with an ongoing investigation under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999. Strikingly, the ED vehemently refuted any allegations of information leakage to the media.
A bench presided over by Justice Subramaniam, in the hearing of Moitra’s plea, declared the reserved judgment slated for Friday, February 23. The essence of Moitra’s grievance, as articulated by her advocate Rebecca John, centered on the purported leakage of confidential details pertaining to the FEMA violations probe. John contended that the ED prematurely leaks communications before they reach the petitioner, subsequently transforming them into public news.
The plea from Moitra goes beyond a mere quest for justice; it fervently demands the restraint of 19 media houses from disseminating “unsubstantiated, erroneous, and injurious information” regarding her involvement in the said case. Notably, the ED had summoned Mahua Moitra for questioning on two occasions—February 14 and February 20—in connection with the alleged FEMA violations. Moitra’s plea underscores the urgency of restraining both the ED and media outlets from prematurely disclosing and publicizing materials linked to the ongoing FEMA investigation.
In the petition, Moitra accuses the ED of “intentionally divulging information with malicious intent” against her. The TMC MP vehemently asserts that reporting news while an investigation is still underway infringes upon the petitioner’s right to a fair inquiry. However, the legal representative for the ED countered these allegations, asserting that the ED has not leaked any information and remains oblivious to the news source.
A crucial backdrop to this legal saga involves the Lok Sabha’s decisive action on December 8, 2023, when it stripped Mahua Moitra of her membership following the Ethics Committee’s determination of her culpability in the ‘cash for query’ scandal. The parliamentary Ethics Committee, having deemed allegations of Moitra accepting money for posing questions to be founded, recommended the termination of her parliamentary membership. It’s worth noting that BJP MP Nishikant Dubey had accused Moitra of soliciting funds from businessman Darshan Hiranandani in exchange for questioning businessman Gautam Adani.
In this legal and political maelstrom, the intricacies and nuances of procedural justice intertwine with the charged atmosphere of media scrutiny, highlighting the complex interplay of legal processes and political narratives. The pendulum of judgment swings, awaiting the court’s pronouncement on the intricate web of allegations and counter-assertions in the realm of Mahua Moitra’s legal odyssey.