Signatories include Indira Jaising, Aruna Roy, P Sainath, Harsh Mandar and John Dayal.

https://m.thewire.in/article/politics/mahua-moitras-threatened-exit-from-parliament-will-create-void-in-the-discourse-of-crucial-issues/amp

Mahua can’t get booted at this stage. At its worst, a suspension is as far things can go (legally). Dare I say, with the material on record, substantiated by Mahua’s many admissions on national media - a suspension from the post is also in order.

Think these “intellectuals” should play the part by conducting themselves in a manner that’s neutral and above board, and await the outcome of an investigation and trial.

Think we as lawyers should also raise our bar for what defines an intellectual - to the extent of knocking off those who are more than eager to influence public opinion before due process even does its part.

Your legal acumen appears questionable, given the lack of coherence in your argument. The prospect of you counseling a complainant is unsettling. Would you genuinely advise such a client to await trial, especially when the accused inadvertently spills the beans?

The ethics committee has assumed a prosecutorial role, with its report serving as the foundation for further investigation and the formulation of charges. Given the extent of Mahua's admissions, her suspension from the post seems entirely justified. In fact, there is precedent for such suspensions or removals.

As for constructing straw man arguments, it seems that the only one hanging on by a thread is Mahua Moitra herself. This is apparent from Darshan Hiranandani's press interview, where he depicted himself as persona non grata to Mahua. In contrast, Mahua still refers to Darshan Hiranandani as her friend. This contrast in points of view appears to be a desperate attempt or plea, imploring him not to spill more beans! She goes to great lengths to justify his actions as those of a close friend. And, mind you, he's no close friend from her school/college days. They first met at a summit, when she held the role of a parliamentarian, nothing less. Given this background, her cozying to him, even to the extent admitted to, does raise eyebrows. Her counter-argument justifying Hiranandani posting questions on her behalf is downright absurd. Surprisingly, no journalist has called her out on this. She claims that no question can be posted on the portal without her prior authorization via OTP. I pose the question: does the message with the OTP also display the question? No one seems to have raised this concern with her. I don't know the answer to this, but the question is very valid. It may not be decisive but, it could throw up more light on who formulated her questions in the first place! Parliamentarians are expected to act independently and not as proxies for corporate interests.

Considering the admissions made by Darshan Hiranandani, Mahua's last ditch effort to cover her tail, revolves around the absence of sufficient proof. "Show me the proof, show that cash exchanged hands," she insists. This echoes the defense often employed by criminals facing such accusations. Here's a quick lesson in law: when there is a compelling prima facie case against an accused, the law takes measures to prevent them from influencing the investigation or trial. A parliamentarian is held to a higher standard. When they breach established ethical standards, it becomes a matter for the ethics committee to review. The committee holds specific powers, and in this case, suspension is warranted. Mahua's lack of cooperation with the committee and numerous statements to the media post the enquiry (a transgression in itself) justify this action. If the investigation uncovers criminality, strong grounds for removal and arrest will emerge.

And let's not forget the light-hearted note - her handling of the Henry situation. Kidnapping a dog? In a world where such antics have consequences, Mahua might find herself in the unemployment line. After all, canine capers don't typically align with the job description of a parliamentarian.

Brilliant comment. Just one point of disagreement: the dog kidnapping issue is not a minor one. Rather, it is the entire reason why this controversy happened. Jai would have not disclosed anything had she let him keep his dog.

P.S. Yes, HIS dog: the ownership docs have his name and the dog belongs to him no matter how many videos Mahua's stans upload of her kissing the dog and calling it "my baccha".

You can silence us with common sense, facts, and logic, but you can't stop us from doing what we do.

My comrades have moved on from Mahua and are fighting hard to legitimize the Hamas-

https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/292167-from-nyt-names-of-harvard-students-who-signed-anti-israel-petition-doxxed-and-posted-on-no-hire-list

I agree. Your fellow comrade, Karan Thapar, has been at it on the Wire taking one interview after the next trashing Israel from the get-go. He made himself so popular doing this that even the Hamas gave them an interview last evening. Here is the link –

https://rb.gy/1lp2w7

Despite his best efforts to put the tough questions, and paint Hamas as above board, Thapar failed miserably!