Amid political chaos in Parliament during the recent Budget session, Aam Admi Party Leader from Rajya Sabha Raghav Chadha pitched for a ‘Right to Recall’ (RTR) for voters to remove underperforming elected representatives’mid-term. Speaking during the Zero Hour, Chadha argued that democracy should not end at voting once every five years. Citizens should have the power to act when their MP or MLA fails to deliver.

“We can impeach the president and judges. Governments face no-confidence motions. But citizens have no power to act against an underperforming legislator,” he said, adding, “Five years is a long tenure for evaluation of performance.” There is no job where you fail continuously and still face zero consequences, he remarked.

For the unversed, Right to Recall refers to a system in which voters would be able to initiate a formal and legally structured process to “de-elect” an MP or MLA before their five-year term is complete. It is typically initiated by a recall petition supported by a specified percentage of voters, followed by a recall vote. If a majority supports removal, the representative vacates office.

The idea of Right to Recall in India was first proposed by MN Roy in 1944. Advocating for a decentralized, organized democracy, where people’s representatives could be removed by voters if they failed to perform their duties, Roy included the Right to Recall in his draft constitution for free India, emphasizing that representatives should be responsible directly to the people through local “People’s Committees” rather than political parties.

But the proposal was negated in the final draft of the Constitution after the motion failed to get a positive mandate at the Constituent Assembly.

In later years, in 1974, Jay Prakash Narayan vouched for it during his countrywide protest against Indira Gandhi’s regime, demanding that Right to Recall can act as a tool in enhancing political accountability and curb corruption in representative democracy.

Similarly, CK Chandrappan, a Communist leader from Kerala, introduced a Constitutional Amendment Bill supporting RTR in 1974, backed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The bill, however, was not passed. More recently, in 2017, BJP leader Varun Gandhi proposed a private member bill to allow MPs/MLAs to be recalled within two years if 75% of voters were dissatisfied.

However, despite the debate over it time and again through Private Members Bill, it hasn’t been able to make it to the Constitution of India. 

The Representation of People’s Act 1951, which is responsible for the electoral process in the country, allows removal of candidates or representatives only upon disqualification or conviction for specified offenses, not for non-performance.

Nonetheless, the concept exists at the local level for elected members of the Panchayat in states such as Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Bihar. 

Interestingly, the philosophical roots of holding rulers accountable to the collective will go back to the Vedic age, where the members of Sabha and Samiti were active participants in governance. This acceptance was not unconditional. It was tied to the performance of ‘rajadharma.’

The Rigveda is also replete with examples of the ruler as one who is “established by the people,” a phrase that resonates with modern democratic vocabulary. A ruler who violated this moral contract risked losing the very foundation of his authority.

The Mahabharata declares that a ruler who fails to protect his subjects forfeits his right to rule

But then the question remains why hasn’t Right to Recall got the support even as voters are disenchanted with the present electoral system that has made mockery of the political system?

Critics are of the opinion that it’s not feasible to introduce Right to Recall in a vast populous and politically volatile country like India as it would not only hamper development by keeping the country always on an election mode but would also be a wastage of public money. It costs in crores to conduct an election in India, they argue.

Secondly, it can encourage freebie culture. To impress the voters, the lawmakers make resort to taking populist decisions, which in the long run will impact the country’s economy and growth. In other words, if a legislator fears that dissatisfaction among voters could trigger a recall campaign, they may avoid tough but necessary decisions. Policies like increasing electricity tariffs, fuel surcharge, enforcing environmental regulations, or reducing inefficient subsidies are often essential for long-term economic stability, but they can be unpopular in the short run. Under the pressure of recall, representatives may delay or dilute such reforms to avoid angering voters.

More importantly, it could strain public finances. States already facing fiscal stress may see rising deficits due to politically motivated spending.

Thirdly, there are chances that such conditions can be misused by politically motivated groups or moneyed class to destabilise elected representatives. In a highly politically sensitive country like India, recall petitions may become an instrument of political rivalry rather than an expression of public dissatisfaction as moneyed class, corporate interests or rival political parties may use their muscle and money power to initiate recall campaigns for their vested interests.

Having said that, it’s also important to keep a check and balance on the lawmakers, especially at a time when the conduct of MPs and MLAs has become questionable. Here’s how

Mandatory constituency performance reports: The Election Commission of India (ECI) should mandate MPs, MLAs, Sarpanch, and Mayors to publish annual performance reports with details including utilization of constituency funds, progress of local development projects, attendance in Parliament and state assemblies, and participation in local debates and parliamentary committees.  Making such reports publicly available would allow citizens to evaluate whether their representatives are actively fulfilling their responsibilities.

Digital review of lawmakers: The performance of each lawmaker, right from the block and panchayat level, should be reviewed by voters every year. In this digitized era, a digital review system could make the process more transparent, structured, and less prone to political misuse. This review system could allow voters to periodically assess the functioning of their MP or MLA through an authenticated online platform, such as the existing platforms of digital governance, like ECI databases and Aadhar for voter verification. Instead of an immediate recall, citizens could participate in an annual digital review, rating lawmakers on parameters such as attendance in the legislature, participation in debates, constituency development, and responsiveness to public grievances.

Institutionalised townhall meetings in every constituency are yet another practical way of mid-term public review without triggering elections. Structured public forums need to be introduced by the ECI once or twice a year in each constituency where elected representatives, MPs, and MLAs can directly interact with citizens and present an account of their work. The compulsory townhall meetings would not only citizens, civil society organisations, journalists, and local stakeholders to ask questions and raise concerns about governance, infrastructure projects, or public services in the constituency but also strengthen democratic culture by encouraging direct engagement between representatives and voters. Reports of these legally mandatory meetings could be documented and placed in the public domain, allowing voters to track whether their representatives are responsive and transparent.

With changing times, it’s wise to design institutions that ensure accountability without challenging stability. Therefore, Right to Recall in the present scenario could act as a game changer if implemented with safeguards, transparency, and political consensus.

END OF ARTICLE