Raghav Chadha has been removed from the post of Deputy Leader in the Rajya Sabha by the Aam Aadmi Party, following which political developments have intensified. The party has decided to assign the responsibility to Ashok Mittal and has also recommended that the speaking time in the Rajya Sabha previously allotted to Chadha be given to Mittal.
After the decision, Raghav Chadha issued a response alleging that attempts are being made to suppress his voice. He released a video expressing his dissatisfaction, stating that he has consistently raised issues concerning ordinary citizens in Parliament. He questioned why raising matters related to the public should be considered inappropriate. He said he has been silenced but not defeated, indicating that he views the decision as significant both personally and politically.
Chadha’s remarks are being seen as indirectly directed at Arvind Kejriwal, as such decisions within the party are typically taken at the top leadership level. In his statement, Chadha said that his silence should not be interpreted as defeat and described himself as a force that could have a significant impact at an appropriate time.
The Aam Aadmi Party has described the development as a routine organisational process. The party stated that changes in the Deputy Leader position have occurred earlier as well and that the decision is not exceptional. Previously, N.D. Gupta held the post before Chadha was assigned the responsibility, and it has now been given to Ashok Mittal as part of a regular change.
In his statement, Chadha also referred to issues he had raised in the Rajya Sabha, including mobile data pricing, the tax burden on the middle class, high food prices at airports, and matters concerning delivery workers. He stated that these issues received public support and were discussed in several instances. He questioned why raising such matters should be problematic if they are related to the public.
Chadha further alleged that the party had written to the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to reduce or withdraw his speaking time. He described this as being against democratic rights and stated that preventing a public representative from expressing their views is not appropriate. According to him, the issue goes beyond removal from a position and involves an attempt to limit his political voice.
