Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha has sparked fresh political debate by strongly advocating for the introduction of a “Right to Recall” system in India’s parliamentary democracy.
Raising the issue in Parliament and through public outreach, Chadha argued that democracy should not be limited to voting once every five years. According to him, citizens must have a constitutional mechanism to remove elected representatives who fail to perform or violate public trust.
“If voters can hire a leader through elections, they should also have the power to remove that leader,” Chadha said, stressing that accountability must continue throughout a representative’s term.
The proposed model would allow voters in a constituency to initiate recall proceedings against their Member of Parliament (MP) or Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA). Chadha suggested that the process should begin with a formally verified petition backed by a significant percentage of voters — around 35 to 40 percent — before a recall vote can be triggered.
To prevent misuse or politically motivated campaigns, he proposed safeguards. One key suggestion was an 18-month protection period after an election, ensuring that elected representatives have sufficient time to begin delivering on their promises before facing recall threats.
Chadha further emphasised that recall should not be used for routine political disagreements. Instead, it should apply only in serious cases such as proven corruption, criminal misconduct, fraud, or gross neglect of duty. Final removal, he suggested, should require the support of more than half of the participating voters in a formal ballot.
Pointing to global examples, Chadha noted that several democracies, including the United States, Switzerland, Japan, and Taiwan, have recall mechanisms in various forms. In India, similar provisions exist in certain local bodies, but not for state legislators or Members of Parliament.
The proposal has generated mixed reactions. Supporters believe it would enhance public accountability and strengthen democratic control over elected officials. Critics, however, warn that frequent recall attempts could destabilise governance and lead to political uncertainty if not carefully regulated.
