The Ethics Committee of Lok Sabha, which heard Bharatiya Janata Party lawmaker Nishikant Dubey and advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai on Thursday, will ask Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra to depose on October 31 over cash-for-query allegations raised by the first two. The panel also proposes to write to the Union home affairs, external affairs and IT ministries for assistance in the case, panel chairman Vinod Kumar Sonkar said.

“The two people who were summoned today — the lawyer (Dehadrai) and (MP) Nishikant Dubey — were heard attentively. Then it was decided that Mahua Moitra would be called on October 31. She will come and present her case to defend herself. The committee has also decided that the IT ministry and MHA will be sent letters to make details (related to the allegations) available,” he added

The IT ministry will be asked for details on the use of Moitra’s user ID in the Parliament portal, while the home affairs ministry will be asked for details on the use of the portal from abroad. The external affairs ministry will authenticate Darshan Hiranandani’s statement, which he issued from Dubai.

According to Parliament functionaries, Sonkar, in his opening remarks described cash-for-query as “shameless behaviour”.

Darshan Hiranandani, the businessman who admitted to gifting Moitra “expensive luxury items” , underwriting the “renovation of her official” bungalow; and posting “questions directly on her behalf” using the Parliament login and password that she provided him with is unlikely to be called to depose as he has already given an affidavit to the consulate general of India in Dubai under Apostille, a method of certifying a document or statement provided or made in a country other than the one where it is to be used.

According to the functionaries cited above, JD(U ) lawmaker Giridhari Yadav and BSP’s Danish Ali urged Dubey to drop the charges against Moitra, pointing out that she was a first-time MP . Dubey, they added, pointed out that it was not up to him and that only the ethics panel can do so. Congress MP Uttam Reddy asked Dubey whether the charges were his way of getting back at Moitra who has accused him of faking his degree. One of the functionaries said that Dubey’s response was that the ethics committee was looking into whether Moitra was guilty or not.

The BJP MP, who first wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker on October 15 on the issue, quoted the affidavit by Darshan Hiranandani to the panel. According to a second functionary, Dubey described the case as “open and shut” and that Hiranandani has accepted the charges. Dubey, whose original complaint cited Dehadrai, said he had never met the latter previously. He admitted that he knew Hiranandani.

According to the functionaries, Dubey, in his deposition, suggested that Moitra should be suspended immediately pending the investigation, pointing out that this was done in 2005 when 11 MPs were disqualified over cash for query allegations. He told the panel that back then, the MPs were disqualified in nine days, at which point, the functionaries added, Reddy said that the BJP MP was trying to exert pressure on the panel.

Dehadrai faced some tough questions from Opposition MPs, the functionaries said, with both Reddy and Ali accusing him of bringing about the charges for personal reasons.

The lawyer is believed to have been a close friend of Moitra’s before falling out. The two MPs also questioned the advocate if the custodial battle over Henry, the dog whose ownership is claimed by both Dehadrai and Moitra, was behind his complaint.

During his deposition, at least two Opposition MPs raised objections and asked why Moitra was not asked to depose first.

The government will move a motion to disqualify Moitra on the first day of winter session if she’s found guilty by the panel, officials aware of the matter said.

The functionaries quoted earlier said that Dubey remarked during his deposition that he was part of the sub-committee that had recommended that complaints against an MP to the ethics panel, should be forwarded by another MP, a move that he added, was necessary to avoid frivolous complaint. As things turned out, he said, here he was, a lawmaker, forwarding a complaint against another.