Aam Aadmi Party Member of Parliament Raghav Chadha on Wednesday urged the introduction of a statutory “Right to Recall” provision, arguing in the Rajya Sabha that voters should have the authority to remove elected representatives before the completion of their five-year term if they fail to deliver on promises or perform effectively.Speaking during a discussion on democratic accountability and electoral reforms, Chadha contended that the current system leaves citizens with limited recourse once a candidate is elected. He said democracy cannot be confined to a vote cast once every five years and described the proposed mechanism as a tool to deepen public participation and strengthen trust in institutions. According to him, such a framework would compel legislators to remain consistently responsive to their constituents rather than relying on party structures or electoral arithmetic.
Chadha framed the proposal as part of a broader debate on electoral reform, pointing to concerns over declining voter engagement, rising campaign expenditure and perceived gaps in accountability. He argued that while mechanisms such as anti-defection laws and parliamentary oversight exist, they do not directly empower voters between elections. The “Right to Recall”, he said, would introduce a performance-linked dimension to public office.
The concept has long been debated in constitutional and academic circles. The Constitution provides for elections, disqualifications and impeachment in specific circumstances but does not include a recall provision for Members of Parliament or state legislators. Legal scholars note that introducing such a measure at the national level would likely require a constitutional amendment, alongside detailed legislation outlining procedures, safeguards and thresholds to prevent misuse.
Chadha cited examples from other democracies where recall provisions operate at varying levels. In the United States, recall mechanisms exist in several states, allowing voters to remove governors, mayors and other officials through petitions followed by special elections. Switzerland also permits recall in certain cantons. However, these systems are often accompanied by strict procedural requirements, including high signature thresholds and time-bound petition windows, designed to balance accountability with stability.
Supporters of recall argue that it enhances democratic responsiveness and deters complacency. Political theorists have described it as an instrument of “direct democracy”, complementing representative structures. In India, some local bodies already provide limited recall provisions. Several states have experimented with recall mechanisms for panchayat representatives, though implementation has varied and legal challenges have arisen over procedural clarity and potential political misuse.
Critics, however, warn of unintended consequences. Former election officials and constitutional experts have cautioned that recall provisions could trigger frequent political campaigns, destabilise governance and subject representatives to pressure from organised interest groups. They argue that representative democracy relies on a degree of continuity and that existing checks — including parliamentary questions, ethics committees and general elections — provide avenues for accountability.
During the Rajya Sabha debate, members from other parties raised procedural and constitutional questions. Some noted that anti-incumbency sentiment is already reflected through periodic elections and that the introduction of recall could lead to perpetual campaigning. Others suggested that strengthening internal party democracy, campaign finance transparency and legislative performance audits might address concerns more effectively.
Chadha responded that safeguards could be built into any proposed legislation, including minimum time periods before a recall petition can be initiated and stringent signature requirements from a substantial percentage of registered voters in a constituency. He maintained that the objective was not to destabilise governments but to empower citizens in exceptional cases of non-performance or ethical lapses.
Electoral reform has remained an evolving subject in Parliament and before the Election Commission of India. Over the years, proposals have ranged from simultaneous elections to greater disclosure norms and state funding of campaigns. The Law Commission has examined aspects of electoral disqualification and transparency, though recall has not been formally incorporated into national legislation.
Political analysts observe that the call for recall aligns with broader public discourse on governance standards. With rising digital engagement and increased scrutiny of lawmakers’ attendance, questions and utilisation of constituency development funds, voters have access to more performance-related information than before. Advocates of reform argue that this data-driven environment could support structured accountability mechanisms.