‘Pre-Determined Exercise’: Kharge, Rahul’s Dissent At NHRC Selection Panel Meet

NEW DELHI : Leaders of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi had recorded their dissent over the selection of the chairperson and members of the National Human Rights Commission on the grounds that the process adopted was “fundamentally flawed” and a “pre-determined” exercise that ignored mutual consultation and consensus.
They had proposed the names of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Kuttiyil Mathew Joseph for the position of chairperson. However, former Supreme Court judge V Ramasubramanian has been appointed as the new chairperson of the NHRC.
The post of NHRC chairperson had been lying vacant since Justice (retd) Arun Kumar Mishra completed his tenure on June 1.
The meeting of the Selection Committee for picking the chairperson and members of the NHRC was held on December 18 at the Parliament House.
In their dissent note, Kharge and Gandhi recorded their disagreement on the grounds that 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,” their dissent note said.
Instead of fostering deliberation and ensuring a collective decision, the committee relied on its numerical majority to finalise the names, disregarding the legitimate concerns and perspectives raised during the meeting, Kharge and Gandhi said.
They said the NHRC is a vital statutory body tasked with safeguarding the fundamental human rights of all citizens, particularly those from the oppressed and marginalised 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,” their dissent note read.
“We proposed the names of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Kuttiyil Mathew Joseph for the position of Chairperson, keeping in mind both merit and the need for inclusivity.
“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,” they said.
Similarly, Justice Joseph, a former Supreme Court judge, belonging to the minority Christian community, has consistently delivered judgments that emphasise individual freedoms and the protection of marginalised groups, making him an ideal candidate for this critical position, Kharge and Gandhi said.
“Furthermore, for the position of Members, we recommended the names of Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice Akil Abdulhamid Qureshi, both of whom have exemplary track records in upholding human rights,” they said.
Justice Muralidhar is widely respected for his landmark judgments advancing social justice, including his work on custodial violence and the protection of civil liberties, and Justice Qureshi, belonging to the Muslim minority community, has consistently defended constitutional principles and demonstrated a strong commitment to accountability in governance, the two leaders said.
Their inclusion would contribute to the NHRC’s effectiveness and its commitment to diversity, the dissent note said.
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, it said.
“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,” the dissent note said.
“Lastly, 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,” the dissent note given on December 18 said.
“The names we proposed reflect this spirit and align with the foundational principles of the commission. Their exclusion raises significant concerns about the impartiality and fairness of the selection process,” Kharge and Gandhi said.
On December 18, a high-powered committee led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a meeting to select the next chairperson of the NHRC.
A former chief justice of India or a retired judge of the top court is appointed as NHRC chairperson by the president on the recommendation of the selection committee.
Justice (retd) Ramasubramanian, a former judge of the apex court, has been appointed the chairperson of the NHRC. Former CJIs H L Dattu and K G Balakrishnan are among those who have headed the rights body in the past.
The NHRC, in a post on X, said, “Hon’ble President of India appoints Shri Justice V. Ramasubramanian (Retd.) as the Chairperson, and Shri Priyank Kanoongo and Dr. Justice Bidyut Ranjan Sarangi (Retd.) as the Members of the National Human Rights Commission(NHRC), India.”
Kanoongo earlier served as a chairperson of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR).
Congress president Kharge and Gandhi attended the meeting as leaders of the opposition (LoPs) in Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha respectively.
According to the law governing NHRC, while the committee which selects the NHRC chief is headed by the prime minister, it has the Lok Sabha Speaker, home minister, leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha, leader of the opposition in Rajya Sabha and deputy chairperson of Rajya Sabha as its members. (AGENICES)