A fresh legal twist has emerged in the ongoing political controversy surrounding the merger of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Rajya Sabha members into the BJP, with Navneet Chaturvedi filing a caveat before the Supreme Court of India.

The caveat, registered as Caveat No. 8080/2026 under the title Navneet Chaturvedi vs Aam Aadmi Party, seeks to ensure that Chaturvedi is heard before any orders are passed, particularly in anticipation of a likely writ petition by Aam Aadmi Party challenging the merger approval.The development follows the April 27 approval by the Rajya Sabha Chairman for the merger of seven AAP Rajya Sabha MPs into the BJP. Chaturvedi has formally objected to the inclusion of Rajinder Gupta in this list, while stating he has no objection to the remaining six members switching parties.

Legal challenge focused on Rajinder Gupta

Chaturvedi’s objection hinges on an ongoing election dispute. He has already challenged Rajinder Gupta’s election through Election Petition EP-2/2025 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where notice has been issued and the matter remains pending.

According to Chaturvedi, Gupta’s shift to the BJP is a strategic move aimed at safeguarding his Rajya Sabha seat. He argues that since Gupta’s election is under judicial scrutiny, he should not be permitted to change political affiliation until the case is resolved.

Chaturvedi has asserted that he is an “aggrieved party” with clear locus standi to challenge Gupta’s political move. His caveat is intended to secure his right to intervene in any Supreme Court proceedings arising from the merger dispute.

He has also indicated that he is preparing an intervention application (IA) to formally participate if AAP proceeds with its expected constitutional challenge against the merger approval.

Chaturvedi also clarified that his legal battle is not aligned with any political party, including the BJP or AAP. He linked the current developments to past events in October 2025, when his nomination was allegedly rejected under contentious circumstances.

He further claimed that individuals who had earlier accused him of being a “BJP agent” and associated with “Operation Lotus” have now themselves joined the BJP. He accused them of attempting to influence AAP MLAs in Punjab and misleading BJP leadership.

Chaturvedi’s plea does not challenge the entire merger. Instead, it seeks a narrow relief: the exclusion of Rajinder Gupta from the list of seven Rajya Sabha members whose merger has been approved—at least until the election petition is decided.

With AAP expected to move the Supreme Court against the merger approval, Chaturvedi’s caveat ensures that the court will have to hear him before issuing any interim or final orders. The matter is likely to add another legal layer to an already politically sensitive dispute involving party defections, constitutional provisions, and pending electoral litigation.