How a Vajpayee-era shift lets Delhi-voter Raghav Chadha represent Punjab in Rajya Sabha

BJP Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha's return to Delhi's voter rolls has raised questions over how he can continue representing Punjab in the Rajya Sabha. The answer lies in an Atal Bihari Vajpayee-era amendment that abolished the state-residency requirement for Upper House candidates. The change was later upheld by the Supreme Court despite concerns that it weakened the Rajya Sabha's federal character.

In Short

• MP Raghav Chadha can represent Punjab despite being registered as voter in Delhi
• A 2003 Vajpayee-era law removed state-voter rule for all Rajya Sabha candidatures
• The Supreme Court upheld the change despite concerns over federal representation

After the SIR row over BJP MP Raghav Chadha's inclusion in and exclusion from electoral rolls, many might have wondered how he can represent Punjab in Parliament without being a voter in the state.

According to reports, Chadha's name has been added to Delhi's electoral rolls days after it was removed from Punjab's draft voter list during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). Saurabh Bharadwaj, the Delhi unit chief of the AAP, which Chadha left to join the BJP, had claimed that Chadha could lose his Rajya Sabha membership after the deletion left him apparently registered nowhere. With Chadha's name now on Delhi voter rolls, such a situation won't arise.

But can an individual who's not a registered voter in a state represent it in the Rajya Sabha? The Rajya Sabha, as the name suggests, is the House of MPs representing the states.

It's a law enacted during the prime ministership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee that allows Rajya Sabha candidates to be registered anywhere in India, not necessarily in the state they represent.

Chadha was elected unopposed to the Rajya Sabha from Punjab as an AAP nominee in 2022. However, the chartered accountant-turned-politician joined the BJP in April, citing differences with the party leadership. Although his election affidavit listed him as a voter in Delhi's Rajinder Nagar, he subsequently transferred his registration to Punjab and voted in Mohali in the 2024 Lok Sabha election, according to reports.

The dispute surrounding the row over his state of residence and the state he represents opens up the question that how can an MP with no current vote in Punjab continue representing the state in the Council of States? The answer lies in a 2003 amendment to the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Supreme Court subsequently upholding the legislation made by the Parliament.

HOW RAGHAV CHADHA'S VOTE SHIFTED BACK TO DELHI

Punjab's draft electoral roll, published on August 13, listed Chadha among voters categorised as "absent, shifted, deceased and duplicate". His entry was marked "permanently shifted", prompting him to accuse the AAP-led government of Punjab of political vendetta.

The AAP denied any role, saying the Election Commission conducted the exercise. The party also argued that Chadha lived in Delhi and was himself responsible for maintaining or transferring his voter registration.

The controversy intensified when AAP leader Bharadwaj wrote on X that Chadha "might lose his Rajya Sabha because his vote got deleted in SIR". At the time, a search of the Election Commission's portal reportedly returned no result for Chadha in either Punjab or Delhi.

Chadha's name has since appeared on the electoral roll for Delhi's Rajinder Nagar constituency. The Delhi Chief Electoral Officer's office said he submitted Form 6 for registration on August 26 and that the Electoral Registration Officer approved it on September 2 after the mandatory seven-day notice period and due procedure.

The AAP rejected the explanation and alleged that Chadha's name had been added under political pressure. Party media in-charge Anurag Dhanda demanded that the BJP MP's Form 6 application be made public.

Irrespective of claims and counter-claims, being a Delhi voter, does not make Chadha ineligible to represent Punjab in the House of the States, or the Rajya Sabha. That's because of the 2003 amendment that we're going to discuss. Had the old rule been in place, a Delhi voter couldn't have entered the Rajya Sabha from Punjab.

VAJPAYEE GOVERNMENT CHANGED RAJYA SABHA RULE. BUT WHY?

Until 2003, Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, required a Rajya Sabha candidate to be an elector in the state or Union Territory being represented.

The Vajpayee government sought to amend the provision, replacing the words "in that State or territory" with "in India". The Vajpayee government's stated reason was that the condition was being circumvented by leaders. People who did not ordinarily live in a state were getting themselves registered there solely to contest Rajya Sabha elections. The Election Commission had also said that precisely defining and enforcing "ordinary residence" was difficult.

Then-Law Minister Arun Jaitley was absent when the Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha, drawing taunts from CPM leader Somnath Chatterjee.

Minister of State for Law, PC Thomas piloted it, arguing that senior national leaders often contest from other states and that removing the residence condition could give the Rajya Sabha a "better composition". The government maintained that MLAs should be free to elect an outsider if they considered that person best suited to represent their state.

After the amendment in August 2003, any person registered in any parliamentary constituency in India has been eligible to contest a Rajya Sabha election from any state or Union Territory. The amendment effectively ended the practice of national leaders obtaining nominal local addresses merely to satisfy the state-voter condition. It also widened the choice available to political parties and state legislators.

Before the amendment, leaders acquired nominal local addresses to qualify as voters. For instance, Manmohan Singh rented part of then-Assam CM Hiteswar Saikia's Guwahati home before entering the Upper House from Assam in 1991. Although the 2003 amendment made that arrangement legally unnecessary, Singh retained the address and his Assam voter registration until his final term from the state, which ended in 2019.

WHEN THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD RAJYA SABHA CHANGE

However, the 2003 amendment did not pass without resistance. Journalist and former MP Kuldip Nayar challenged the amendment legally, arguing that removing the residence requirement diluted and damaged the Rajya Sabha's federal character. A person without a genuine connection to a state, the petitioners argued, could not meaningfully represent its people and interests.

However, the Supreme Court rejected that argument in 2006. It held that the Constitution did not prescribe residence in the state as a qualification and that Parliament was empowered to determine additional eligibility conditions. A person became a state's representative because its elected MLAs chose that person, the court said, not because the candidate lived or voted there.

Thus, Chadha's Delhi registration is legally sufficient for him to remain a Rajya Sabha MP from Punjab. Claims that he could automatically lose his seat overstated the law, as even his temporary absence from any draft rolls would merely have raised a legal question rather than instantly ended his membership. That's how the Vajpayee-era amendment came in handy for the BJP MP from Delhi, representing Punjab.

- Ends