The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has issued a second summons to Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mahua Moitra, directing her to join the probe on March 11 in connection with irregularities in a foreign exchange contravention case. This development comes after Moitra failed to appear before investigators on February 19, prompting the issuance of fresh summons.
Moitra has been instructed to appear at the agency’s headquarters in Delhi and bring along certain documents related to foreign investments. The ED’s investigation into the case is being conducted under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999, and the agency seeks to record Moitra’s statement regarding the matter.
Notably, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is also probing Moitra in a preliminary inquiry based on a reference from the Lokpal. The ED’s case is believed to be linked to the reference from the CBI, suggesting a connection between the two investigations.
Moitra has been embroiled in controversy following allegations made by Bharatiya Janata Party MP Nishikant Dubey, who accused her of targeting the Adani Group and Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the Lok Sabha at the behest of businessman Darshan Hiranandani in exchange for gifts. Dubey further alleged that Moitra compromised national security for monetary gains.
In response to these allegations, Moitra has vehemently denied any wrongdoing and claimed that she is being targeted for raising questions about the deals of the Adani Group. She was expelled as a Lok Sabha member on December 8 after the ethics panel found her guilty in the ‘cash-for-query’ case.
Moitra has criticized the lack of official documentation regarding the investigations against her, stating that neither the Lokpal nor the CBI has provided any official information. She has emphasized the need for transparency and accountability in the investigative process.
Despite the ongoing investigations and allegations, Moitra remains steadfast in her denial of any misconduct and continues to assert her innocence. The developments surrounding her case highlight the intersection of politics, business interests, and regulatory scrutiny in India’s governance landscape.
