Congress Issues Dissent Over Appointment Of NHRC Chairperson; Raises Concerns On Selection Process

On Tuesday, Congress issued a dissent note challenging the recent appointment of former Supreme Court judge Justice V Ramasubramanian as the new National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) chairperson by President Droupadi Murmu.

The party expressed concerns that the selection process was fundamentally flawed, predetermined, and raised questions about the impartiality and fairness of the procedure.

In their dissent note, dated 18 December, Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and Mallikarjun Kharge, the Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, emphasized that their objections were “without prejudice to the names of the Chairperson and members approved by the Selection Committee.”

Four Points Of Disagreement

The note highlighted four main points of disagreement.

Flawed Selection Process

The first point stated, “The selection process adopted by the Committee was fundamentally flawed. It was a pre-determined exercise that ignored the established tradition of mutual consultation and consensus, which is essential in such matters. This departure undermines the principles of fairness and impartiality, which are critical to the credibility of the Selection Committee. Instead of fostering deliberation and ensuring a collective decision, the Committee relied on its numerical majority to finalize the names, disregarding the legitimate concerns and perspectives raised during the meeting.”

Importance Of Inclusiveness In NHRC Leadership

“The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is a vital statutory body tasked with safeguarding the fundamental human rights of all citizens, particularly those from oppressed and marginalized sections of society. Its ability to fulfil this mandate depends significantly on the inclusiveness and representativeness of its composition. A diverse leadership ensures that the NHRC remains sensitive to the unique challenges faced by various communities, especially those most vulnerable to human rights violations,” the second point asserted.

The note mentions that the two Congress leaders suggested Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Kuttiyil Mathew Joseph for the Chairperson role, considering both merit and inclusivity.

It stated, “Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, a distinguished jurist from the minority Parsi community, is renowned for his intellectual depth and unwavering commitment to constitutional values. His inclusion would send a strong message about the NHRC’s dedication to representing India’s pluralistic society.”

“Similarly, Justice Kuttiyil Mathew Joseph, a former Supreme Court judge, belonging to minority Christian community, has consistently delivered judgments that emphasize individual freedoms and the protection of marginalized groups, making him an ideal candidate for this critical position,” the note added.

The note also proposed the names of Justice S Muralidhar and Justice Akil Abdulhamid Qureshi for NHRC membership.

Justice Muralidhar receives praise for his landmark judgments on social justice, while Justice Qureshi, from the Muslim minority community, earns recognition for his strong defense of constitutional principles and accountability.

Importance Of Diversity In NHRC Leadership

The third point of the note underlines, “While merit is undeniably the primary criterion, maintaining a balance that reflects the regional, caste, community, and religious diversity of the nation is equally important. This balance ensures that the NHRC operates with an inclusive perspective, sensitive to the lived experiences of all sections of society. By neglecting this critical principle, the Committee risks eroding public trust in this esteemed institution.”

Criticism Of NHRC Dismissive Approach

Finally, the dissent note criticized, “The dismissive approach adopted by the majority of the Selection Committee in today’s meeting towards these considerations is deeply regrettable. The NHRC’s credibility and effectiveness depend on its ability to embody the diversity and inclusiveness that define India’s constitutional ethos.”

Kharge and Gandhi concluded that the exclusion of the proposed candidates raised serious doubts about the fairness and impartiality of the selection process.

Also Read: Swami Ramabhadracharya: Bhagwat’s Temple-Mosque Views ‘Personal’, Not Reflective Of Hinduism