Several activists from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) were detained by the Mumbai Police on Sunday after staging a protest outside the Khar residence of Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha, who recently quit AAP and joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Demonstrators raised slogans accusing Chadha of betrayal and burned his effigy, expressing anger over his political switch. Police officials confirmed that some activists were taken to the Khar Police Station to prevent a gathering near the residence and maintain public order, while AAP leaders claimed the protest was peaceful and that prior intimation had been given to the authorities.
The party also alleged that police imposed restrictions, blocked access to the protest site and detained leaders including Mumbai working president Ruben Mascarenhas. Later developments indicated that an FIR was registered under bailable sections and those detained were released after being served notices.
Protest Outside Chadha Home Sparks Detentions
Tension unfolded in Mumbai’s Khar area on Sunday as AAP workers gathered near the residence of Raghav Chadha to protest his recent defection to the BJP. Videos shared on social media showed party volunteers raising slogans such as “Gaddar Raghav Chadha” and holding placards criticising his move, while some protesters also burned his effigy.
According to police officials, several activists were detained as they attempted to gather outside the property and raise slogans against the Rajya Sabha MP. Authorities reportedly deployed a heavy police presence and restricted access to the area around the residence to prevent a large gathering.
Roads leading to the property were blocked and vehicular movement was limited to maintain law and order. Police later confirmed that some activists had been taken to the Khar Police Station for questioning and preventive action.
AAP leaders, however, strongly criticised the police action. The party’s Mumbai unit maintained that the demonstration had been planned as a peaceful protest and that the police had been informed beforehand. According to party representatives, activists were prevented from assembling at the designated location and some leaders were detained even before the protest could begin.
Ruben Mascarenhas alleged that he was taken into custody without any formal detention order or written communication. In a post on social media, he questioned the police action and claimed that authorities were trying to suppress dissent. The party also alleged that while their demonstration was restricted, political protests by other parties were often allowed to proceed without similar interventions.
Despite the restrictions, some AAP volunteers reportedly regrouped at nearby locations and marched towards Khar to continue their protest. According to party leaders, the workers eventually managed to reach the residence area and raise slogans outside the property, though the demonstration remained brief due to police presence.
Political Fallout After MPs Quit AAP
The protest in Mumbai comes amid a major political rift within AAP following the resignation of several of its Rajya Sabha members. Chadha, along with six other MPs including Harbhajan Singh, Ashok Mittal, Sandeep Pathak, Rajinder Gupta, Vikram Sahney and Swati Maliwal resigned from the party and announced their merger with the BJP in the Rajya Sabha. The move dealt a significant setback to AAP and triggered protests by party workers in several cities.
Announcing his exit, Chadha said the party had “strayed from its founding principles, values and morals”, and that he no longer wanted to be associated with what he described as the party’s direction. He claimed that more than two-thirds of AAP’s Rajya Sabha members supported the decision and that the group had formally merged with the BJP under constitutional provisions.
The rift had reportedly been building for weeks before the announcement. Chadha had earlier been removed as the party’s deputy leader in the Rajya Sabha, fuelling speculation about internal disagreements. Senior leaders in AAP allegedly accused him of deviating from the party’s stance and maintaining a softer position towards the BJP in parliamentary debates.
The political fallout quickly triggered protests from party supporters. In addition to the demonstration in Mumbai, similar protests were reported in other cities. For instance, workers had earlier gathered outside the residence of Rajya Sabha MP Rajinder Gupta in Ludhiana, where they spray-painted slogans and burned effigies to express anger over the defections.
The situation in Mumbai also escalated legally after police registered an FIR against some of the protesters in connection with the demonstration outside Chadha’s residence. According to party leaders, the charges included bailable sections and those detained were released after being served notices under provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Despite the legal action, AAP’s Mumbai unit reiterated that the protest had been peaceful and accused authorities of attempting to suppress democratic expression. The party argued that dissent and criticism are essential aspects of democratic politics and that workers had gathered only to express their disagreement with the political defection.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Political defections often trigger strong emotional responses among party supporters, particularly when prominent leaders switch sides after years of association with a party. While such reactions reflect the intensity of political loyalties, they also highlight the importance of maintaining democratic values in moments of disagreement. Peaceful protest is a legitimate form of political expression, but it must remain non-violent and respectful of public order.
As India’s political landscape becomes increasingly polarised, incidents like these remind us of the need for greater dialogue, transparency and accountability in political life. When leaders change political affiliations, open communication with supporters and citizens can help reduce mistrust and prevent confrontation. Ultimately, a healthy democracy thrives not on suppression or hostility but on respectful debate and peaceful participation.
