New Delhi: The decision by the AAP Aam Aadmi Party to remove Raghav Chadha as Deputy Leader in the Rajya Sabha and restrict his speaking role has escalated into a major political flashpoint, drawing sharply divided reactions from within the party and the opposition.
AAP has appointed Punjab MP Ashok Mittal as the new Deputy Leader, a move the party insists is part of its routine internal functioning. Addressing the development, Ashok Mittal defended the leadership’s decision and rejected claims of any internal conflict.
“AAP is a party that functions democratically. Our party always tries to give different responsibilities to different people so that they can learn and amplify the voice of the people,” Mittal stated. He further explained that leadership roles within the party are periodically rotated, noting that ND Gupta had earlier held the same position before Raghav Chadha.
“Today I have been given this responsibility, tomorrow someone else will take it. Such changes are a normal process in our party,” he added, portraying the move as a structured and evolving leadership mechanism rather than a disciplinary action.
However, this explanation has done little to quell criticism from opposition leaders. BJP MP Ramvir Singh Bidhuri strongly condemned the decision, raising concerns over internal democracy within the party. Recalling his experience with Chadha in the Delhi Assembly, Bidhuri described him as a capable and effective speaker.
“If the AAP leadership has stopped him from speaking, then this reflects complete dictatorship,” Bidhuri said, openly questioning the functioning of the party. He also directed criticism towards Arvind Kejriwal, asking where democratic values stand if such decisions are taken against a senior leader.
Bidhuri further emphasized that while internal decisions are a party’s prerogative, preventing a prominent Member of Parliament from speaking on behalf of the party is highly unusual and raises serious concerns about transparency and leadership style.
The controversy has gained further traction as Raghav Chadha himself had earlier indicated that he had been raising issues concerning the general public, including rising costs and everyday economic challenges. This has led to speculation that differences over priorities and messaging may have contributed to the decision.
The situation now reflects a deeper political narrative, where the party’s claim of democratic functioning is being weighed against allegations of internal suppression. Supporters view the reshuffle as an organizational decision, while critics interpret it as a sign of growing centralisation of authority.
As the debate intensifies, the development has moved beyond a routine leadership change to become a broader discussion on political accountability, internal democracy, and the balance between collective discipline and individual expression.
The coming days are likely to determine whether the party provides further clarity or whether the issue continues to fuel political discourse at the national level.
