3 aspects of investigation being questioned by members...
3 aspects of investigation being questioned by members...
Giridhari Yadav, a JDU mp from Banka and member of the Ethics Committee, states: "The whole thing goes against the principles of justice." In the Mahua case, there has been a rush. They state: 1. Darshan Hiranandani, an industrialist, provided an affidavit which served as the foundation for the entire accusation against Mahua. It was decided not to invite Hiranandani to the committee meeting. During the meeting, no efficient method for cross-checking the affidavit was employed. How would the veracity of the affidavit be accepted in such a circumstance?2. Mahua Moitra's perspective was not fully heard. Mahua left the meeting after just two minutes. He did not get another opportunity to make his case. Mahua had, in fact, abstained from the committee meeting. He claimed that the chairman of the committee had questioned him about personal matters.3. The committee members received a call, but no instructions were given? When we had to make the decision on our own, why were we called? The lok sabha has been urged to elucidate the authority held by the members of the Ethics Committee.Another committee member and Amroha-based BSP mp Kunwar Danish ali claims that a report that is only partially completed has been sent. The report omits the conversation that occurred within the committee.The affidavit's source has not been contacted by the committee. This suggests that the situation has been hurried.
Giridhari Yadav, a JDU mp from Banka and member of the Ethics Committee, states: "The whole thing goes against the principles of justice." In the Mahua case, there has been a rush. They state: 1. Darshan Hiranandani, an industrialist, provided an affidavit which served as the foundation for the entire accusation against Mahua. It was decided not to invite Hiranandani to the committee meeting. During the meeting, no efficient method for cross-checking the affidavit was employed. How would the veracity of the affidavit be accepted in such a circumstance?2. Mahua Moitra's perspective was not fully heard. Mahua left the meeting after just two minutes. He did not get another opportunity to make his case. Mahua had, in fact, abstained from the committee meeting. He claimed that the chairman of the committee had questioned him about personal matters.3. The committee members received a call, but no instructions were given? When we had to make the decision on our own, why were we called? The lok sabha has been urged to elucidate the authority held by the members of the Ethics Committee.Another committee member and Amroha-based BSP mp Kunwar Danish ali claims that a report that is only partially completed has been sent. The report omits the conversation that occurred within the committee.The affidavit's source has not been contacted by the committee. This suggests that the situation has been hurried.