Following the controversy over BJP MP Raghav Chadha's inclusion in and removal from electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), questions have emerged about how he can continue representing Punjab in Parliament if he is not registered as a voter in the state.
Reports indicate that Chadha's name has now been added to Delhi's electoral rolls, days after it was removed from Punjab's draft voter list during the SIR exercise. Saurabh Bharadwaj, Delhi AAP chief and a former party colleague of Chadha before he joined the BJP, had claimed that the deletion could put Chadha's Rajya Sabha membership at risk because he appeared to be registered as a voter nowhere. With his name now included in Delhi's electoral roll, that situation no longer exists.
But does a Rajya Sabha MP need to be a registered voter in the state from which they are elected? Despite the Rajya Sabha being the Council of States, the answer is no.
A law introduced during the tenure of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee allows candidates contesting Rajya Sabha elections to be registered as voters anywhere in India rather than necessarily in the state they seek to represent.
Chadha was elected unopposed to the Rajya Sabha from Punjab as an AAP candidate in 2022. The chartered accountant-turned-politician joined the BJP in April, citing differences with the party's leadership. His election affidavit had identified him as a voter in Delhi's Rajinder Nagar. He later shifted his voter registration to Punjab and, according to reports, cast his vote in Mohali during the 2024 Lok Sabha election.
The dispute over Chadha's state of residence and the state he represents has raised the question of how an MP without a current voter registration in Punjab can continue representing the state in the Rajya Sabha. The explanation comes from a 2003 amendment to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.
HOW RAGHAV CHADHA'S VOTER REGISTRATION MOVED BACK TO DELHI
Punjab's draft electoral roll, released on August 13, placed Chadha's name in a category covering voters who were "absent, shifted, deceased and duplicate". His record was specifically labelled "permanently shifted", leading him to accuse the AAP-led Punjab government of targeting him for political reasons.
The AAP rejected the allegation and maintained that the Election Commission was responsible for the revision process. The party also argued that since Chadha lived in Delhi, he was responsible for keeping his voter registration updated or moving it when necessary.
The issue gained further attention after AAP leader Saurabh Bharadwaj posted on X that Chadha "might lose his Rajya Sabha because his vote got deleted in SIR". At that point, searches on the Election Commission's portal reportedly showed no voter record for Chadha in either Punjab or Delhi.
His name has subsequently been added to the electoral roll in Delhi's Rajinder Nagar constituency. The Delhi Chief Electoral Officer's office said Chadha filed Form 6 to register as a voter on August 26. The Electoral Registration Officer approved the application on September 2 following the required seven-day notice period and other prescribed procedures.
The AAP disputed this account and alleged that political pressure had led to Chadha's inclusion on the Delhi voter list. Party media in-charge Anurag Dhanda called for the BJP MP's Form 6 application to be made public.
Regardless of the competing allegations, Chadha's status as a Delhi voter does not prevent him from representing Punjab in the Rajya Sabha. This is a direct consequence of the 2003 amendment. Under the earlier rules, a person registered as a voter in Delhi would not have been eligible to contest a Rajya Sabha election from Punjab.
WHY DID THE VAJPAYEE GOVERNMENT CHANGE THE RAJYA SABHA RULE?
Before 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 they intended to represent.
The Vajpayee government amended the provision by replacing the phrase "in that State or territory" with "in India". The government said the earlier requirement was being exploited by political leaders who did not ordinarily live in a particular state but obtained voter registration there simply to contest Rajya Sabha elections.
The Election Commission had also pointed out that determining and enforcing the concept of "ordinary residence" could be difficult.
Then-Law Minister Arun Jaitley was not present when the Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha, prompting criticism from CPM leader Somnath Chatterjee.
The legislation was piloted by Minister of State for Law PC Thomas, who argued that senior national leaders frequently contested elections from states other than their home states. Removing the residence requirement, he said, could result in a "better composition" of the Rajya Sabha. The government also argued that elected MLAs should have the freedom to choose an outsider if they believed that person was best qualified to represent their state.
Following the amendment in August 2003, anyone registered as a voter in a parliamentary constituency anywhere in India became eligible to contest a Rajya Sabha election from any state or Union Territory.
The change effectively eliminated the need for national political leaders to obtain nominal local addresses simply to meet the state-specific voter requirement. It also expanded the pool of candidates available to political parties and state legislators.
Before the amendment, leaders sometimes secured local addresses to become eligible voters in the states they wanted to represent. Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, for example, rented part of the Guwahati residence of then-Assam Chief Minister Hiteswar Saikia before entering the Rajya Sabha from Assam in 1991. Although the 2003 amendment made such an arrangement unnecessary, Singh continued to retain the address and his Assam voter registration until his last Rajya Sabha term from the state ended in 2019.
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THE RAJYA SABHA RULE CHANGE
The 2003 amendment faced a legal challenge. Journalist and former MP Kuldip Nayar challenged the change, arguing that removing the residence requirement weakened the federal character of the Rajya Sabha.
The petitioners contended that someone without a genuine connection to a state could not effectively represent its people or their interests.
The Supreme Court, however, rejected the challenge in 2006. It ruled that the Constitution did not require a Rajya Sabha candidate to reside in the state they sought to represent and that Parliament had the authority to establish additional eligibility requirements.
The court also held that a person represents a state because that state's elected MLAs select them, rather than because they live or vote there.
As a result, Chadha's registration as a voter in Delhi is legally enough for him to continue serving as a Rajya Sabha MP from Punjab. Suggestions that he would automatically lose his seat because his Punjab voter registration was removed overstated the legal position. Even if he had temporarily not been registered on any electoral roll, that situation would have raised a legal question but would not by itself have immediately terminated his Rajya Sabha membership.
The Vajpayee-era amendment, therefore, allows the BJP leader to remain a Rajya Sabha MP representing Punjab even while being registered as a voter in Delhi.
