The ‘cash for query’ controversy took an unexpected twist on Thursday (19 October) when businessman Darshan Hiranandani released a statement revealing that he had used the Parliamentary login of Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra to pose questions to the central government.

This revelation surfaced following accusations made by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, who claimed that Moitra had allegedly posed questions in Parliament in exchange for gifts and financial incentives from the Hiranandani group.

In response, Moitra vehemently denied the allegations and proceeded to file a defamation lawsuit against Dubey, as well as Supreme Court advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai and others involved.

To summarize the developments in this case thus far:

October 14

– Advocate Dehadrai filed a complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), requesting the lodging of an FIR related to charges of corruption and money laundering. Dehadrai also submitted a copy of his complaint to the Lok Sabha Speaker.

October 15

– BJP MP Dubey submitted a complaint to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla against Moitra, urging the formation of an inquiry committee and her immediate suspension from Parliament.

In his complaint, Dubey referenced a detailed complaint from advocate Dehadrai. The allegations against Moitra involve purportedly asking questions in Parliament in exchange for gifts and cash from a businessman, along with targeting the Prime Minister and Home Minister in an attempt to link them to another corporate entity.

– Speculation begins on social media, including X (formerly Twitter), as to whether the dog, a Rottweiler, seen in various pictures of Moitra is the same as the one seen in pictures posted by Advocate Dehadrai on Twitter..

October 16

– Following the complaint by the BJP MP, Moitra posted messages on social media to respond to Dubey without directly naming him. She mentioned, “Multiple breach of privileges pending against fake degreewala & other BJP luminaries. Welcome any motions against me right after Speaker finishes dealing with those. Also waiting for ED & others to file FIR in Adani coal scam before coming to my doorstep.”

– Dubey wrote to Communications, Electronics & Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, requesting an investigation into the “IP Address” of Moitra’s “Lok Sabha login credentials.”

– In response, Moitra highlighted that parliamentary work of MPs is carried out by a team of individuals and requested the IT minister to release location and login details of all MPs with Call Detail Records (CDRs).

She stated that the charges were rooted in a “jilted ex’s lies.” According to various media reports, she was alluding to Advocate Dehadrai.

October 17

– Moitra approached the Delhi High Court, seeking an injunction to prevent BJP MP Dubey, Advocate Dehadrai, and several social media platforms and media outlets from disseminating any alleged fake and defamatory content about her.

– Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla directed the complaint made by Dubey to be forwarded to the Lower House’s Ethics Committee for review.

October 19

– Darshan Hiranandani, son of real estate billionaire Niranjan Hiranandani, asserted that he had used the Rajya Sabha MP’s Parliamentary login to ask questions to the central government.

In an affidavit, Darshan stated that he and Moitra had regular communication, and she provided her email ID as a Member of Parliament for him to send information, which she could raise in Parliament. He also alleged that Moitra sought various favors from him.

– Moitra refuted these claims, suggesting that the government pressured Darshan into making these statements.

“He has not been called by CBI or the ethics committee. Why would he write this on his own? Modi has threatened to shut his and his father’s businesses down. They have huge investments in every state. BJP wants to get me at any cost so forced him to do this,” she added.

– Dehadrai writes a letter addressed to the Delhi Police Commissioner, seeking assistance in reuniting with his pet dog Henry.

In the letter, he described his deep connection with the dog, Henry, likening it to that of a parent and child. He emphasized his long-standing care for Henry, having looked after the dog since it was 40 days old and claimed to understand the dog’s every need and concern.

Dehadrai accused Moitra of deliberately keeping Henry from him as an act of reprisal for his CBI complaint.

October 20

– The Delhi High Court is set to hear Moitra’s defamation case against Dubey, Dehadrai and others.

– Dehadrai reported that on the afternoon of October 19th, an effort was made to pressure him into retracting his CBI complaint and his letter addressed to Dubey. The condition for this withdrawal was the release of his pet dog, Henry, who, according to him, is currently being held without authorization by Moitra.

Dehadrai says he categorically declined this offer, and he has expressed his intent to provide a comprehensive account of the incident to the CBI.