‘Balance of caste, community ignored’: Cong dissent note over choice of NHRC chief

Arguing that while merit was the primary criterion in selecting the chairperson and members of the NHRC, the party said “maintaining a balance that reflects the regional, caste, community, and religious diversity of the nation is equally important”.

The Congress note said the balance of caste and community “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 note said.

“The selection process adopted by the committee was fundamentally flawed… 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,” the Congress dissent note submitted to the committee on December 18 said.

The committee to select the NHRC chairperson is headed by the Prime Minister. It has the Lok Sabha Speaker, the Union Home Minister, the Leaders of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, and the Deputy Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha as its members.

Ramasubramanian retired on June 29, 2023, after serving for over three years as a Supreme Court judge. During his tenure, he was part of Benches in several important cases, including the five-judge Bench that upheld the Centre’s demonetisation scheme in 2023 and the decision to set aside a Reserve Bank of India (RBI) circular that stated it would not provide services to individuals and businesses dealing with cryptocurrency.

According to the dissent note, the Congress had proposed the names of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Kuttiyil Mathew Joseph. The note said these recommendations were made keeping in mind both merit and “need for inclusivity” as Nariman belongs to the minority Parsi community and Joseph to the Christian community. The note said this would “send a strong message about the NHRC’s dedication to representing India’s pluralistic society”.

For the positions of members, the Congress had recommended the names of Justice S Muralidhar and Justice Akil Abdulhamid Qureshi, saying “both… have exemplary track records in upholding human rights”. “Their inclusion would contribute to the NHRC’s effectiveness and its commitment to diversity,” the note said.

Muralidhar retired as the Chief Justice of the Odisha High Court in August 2023. In February 2020, Muralidhar presided over three sittings dealing with urgent pleas over the police inaction in the Delhi riots. After an emergency midnight hearing at his residence, Muralidhar had issued an order, among others, directing the police to protect those injured in the riot and ensure their safe transfer to hospital with proper facilities. Immediately after these orders, the Centre transferred Muralidhar to the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Qureshi retired as the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court in 2022. He had earlier served in the Gujarat High Court, where Qureshi delivered two important verdicts seen as an embarrassment to the then Narendra Modi government in the state. In 2010, he set aside a trial court order and granted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) two-day custody of then Gujarat Home Minister and now Union Home Minister Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case (in 2014, Shah was cleared in the case by a Special CBI Court). In 2011, a Bench headed by Qureshi upheld then Gujarat Governor Kamla Beniwal’s decision to appoint former High Court judge R A Mehta as the state’s Lokayukta, which Modi had opposed.

Calling the “dismissive approach” of the majority of the selection committee “deeply regrettable”, the dissent note said, “The NHRC’s credibility and effectiveness depend on its ability to embody the diversity and inclusiveness that define India’s constitutional ethos.” It has added that rejection of the names proposed by Congress “raises significant concerns about the impartiality and fairness of the selection process”.