On 23rd December, the President of India, Droupadi Murmu, appointed retired Justice V Ramasubramanian as the Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Alongside, Priyank Kanoongo and retired Justice Bidyut Ranjan Sarangi were appointed as Members of the Commission. Justice Ramasubramanian will take charge of the post that has been vacant since June this year when retired Justice Arun Kumar Mishra completed his tenure.
Congress leaders write dissent note over NHRC selection
On 24th December, Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge criticised the selection process of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Chairperson. In their dissent letter, the Congress leaders termed the selection process a “pre-determined exercise” and claimed it disregarded the established tradition of consultation and consensus.
Both Gandhi and Kharge are members of the high-powered selection committee led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In their dissent letter, they claimed that there were fundamental flaws in the selection process and argued that the committee relied on its numerical majority to finalise the appointments while sidelining “legitimate concerns” raised during deliberations.
The note read, “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. This departure undermines the principles of fairness and impartiality, which are critical to the credibility of the Selection Committee.”
Interestingly, they had recommended retired Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Kuttiyil Mathew Joseph for the post of NHRC Chairperson. The Congress leaders claimed that both judges “possess the requisite merit” and represent marginalised communities, which would have made the NHRC “inclusive.” The note read, “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.”
For the position of NHRC members, they had proposed the names of Justice S Muralidhar and Justice Akil Abdulhamid Qureshi. The note read, “Their inclusion would contribute to the NHRC’s effectiveness and its commitment to diversity.”
Both leaders also claimed that the finalised names lack diversity and stated that the NHRC’s credibility depends on the ability of the Commission to represent the country’s regional, caste, and religious diversity. They argued that the dismissive approach of the committee towards these considerations risks eroding public trust in the institution. The letter read, “The NHRC’s credibility and effectiveness depend on its ability to embody the diversity and inclusiveness that define India’s constitutional ethos. By neglecting this critical principle, the Committee risks eroding public trust in this esteemed institution.”
Who is retired Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman?
The first name mentioned in the dissent letter is that of retired Supreme Court judge, Justice Rohinton Nariman, who recently sparked controversy with his remarks criticising the 2019 Ayodhya verdict. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, born on 13th August 1956, is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India. Before his appointment to the bench, he practised as a senior counsel and served as the Solicitor General of India. His career has often drawn attention for reasons beyond his judicial contributions.
During a lecture, he termed the verdict a “mockery of justice” and claimed it violated secularism by allegedly ignoring the Places of Worship Act, despite the Act explicitly stating that the Ayodhya land dispute was outside its scope. Nariman further condemned the Hindu community for acting “outside the law” and expressed dismay over the failure to rebuild a mosque on the disputed site, calling it a “travesty of justice.” Interestingly, his father, Fali S. Nariman, a renowned lawyer, also opposed the Ram Mandir movement and had expressed discomfort with Yogi Adityanath, a monk, becoming the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. This familial stance aligns with Rohinton Nariman’s contentious criticisms, which often ignite debates about selective secularism and perceptions of Hindu traditions.
Justice Rohinton Nariman has a history of sparking controversies with his remarks. In March 2023, he openly criticised the Government of India for banning the BBC documentary “India: The Modi Question”, which accused then-Chief Minister Narendra Modi of involvement in the 2002 Godhra riots. The documentary was banned for its misleading content, but Rohinton claimed the move was a blow to media freedom, stating that India still had a long way to go in upholding press rights.
He further attempted to link tax raids on BBC India’s offices to the documentary’s release, disregarding substantial evidence of the broadcaster’s tax evasions in India and globally. This selective criticism fuelled debates on his stance and the credibility of his arguments.
Who is retired Justice Kuttiyil Mathew Joseph?
Justice Kuttiyil Mathew Joseph, born on 17th June 1958, is a former Supreme Court judge of India. He studied at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Loyola College, and Government Law College, Ernakulam, and began practising law in 1982. He served as Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court before being elevated to the Supreme Court in August 2018, retiring in June 2023.
Justice Joseph faced criticism during his tenure for his conduct in court, particularly in a hearing on hate speech. When calls for genocide against Hindus were brought up, he smiled and made remarks that angered the Hindu community. His reaction was biased and he was accused of being insensitive to the plight of Hindus. In the same hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out hate speeches against Hindus, but Justice Joseph referred to Periyar in his reply which aimed to justify such speeches. His handling of the case led to widespread backlash, with many questioning his fairness and impartiality in delivering justice.
When Rahul Gandhi was disqualified after being sentenced in a defamation case, during a hearing against the disqualification of another lawmaker, Justice KM Joseph criticised the law and said, “But this section is very drastic.. that is why you have to be careful thinking about the sentence. If it’s 14 years.. then imagine after another 6 years…” He was referring to the provision in the section according to which such a lawmaker remains disqualified from contesting polls for six years after release from jail.
Who is retired Justice S Muralidhar?
Justice S Muralidhar, born on 8th August 1961, served in the Delhi High Court from 2006 to 2020 before being transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. He later became the Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court in January 2021 and retired in August 2023.
His transfer from the Delhi High Court in February 2020 became a point of controversy. The left-liberal section of the society claimed that it was due to his orders during the Delhi riots case, where he directed police to protect victims and provide medical aid. However, the government clarified that the transfer was recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium on 12th February, well before his rulings. Furthermore, the government said that it followed proper procedures, including his consent. However, in 2023 he claimed he did not understand “why the central government was upset” by his verdict in the Delhi Riots case.
Notably, the allegations that his transfer was politically motivated or abrupt were proven false. The case he handled during the riots was not originally listed under him. however, he heard the case in urgency asto the Chief Justice was not available. His transfer was part of a routine Collegium decision. Notably, similar notifications were issued for other judges. Thus, the claims of the retaliation from the government over the Delhi Riots verdict were baseless.
In 2024, the Delhi High Court closed contempt proceedings against scientist Dr Anand Ranganathan, observing that it was a “sheer wastage” of the court’s time. The court observed that Ranganathan did not pass any adverse comments against then-HC judge S Muralidhar but merely stood in support of those who did. The case pertains to suo-moto criminal contempt proceedings initiated against Dr Anand Ranganathan, Vivek Agnihotri, Swarajya Magazine and others in 2018 in connection with relief provided by Justice S. Murlidhar to UAPA accused Gautam Navlakha. Details of the case can be checked here.
Who is retired Justice Akil Abdulhamid Qureshi?
Justice Akil Abdulhamid Kureshi, born on 7th March 1960, is a former Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court and the Tripura High Court. He also served in the Gujarat and Bombay High Courts, including a brief tenure as Acting Chief Justice of Gujarat. His career has been marred by controversies and claims of victimhood over his non-elevation to the Supreme Court.
In 2019, he was transferred to the Tripura High Court after the Union Government rejected the Collegium’s recommendation to appoint him as Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The transfer sparked a controversy and was framed by his supporters as a slight. Interestingly, in his farewell speech, Justice Kureshi claimed that the government had “negative perceptions” about him, and it was a “certificate of independence” for him. However, he conveniently ignored that such transfers are routine and part of the Collegium’s established procedures. The incident was used by the likes of The Wire to attack the government and the judicial system.
Justice Rohinton Nariman and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal later used Justice Kureshi’s career to criticise the judicial system. Justice Nariman claimed that independent judges are “pushed out.” On the other hand, Sibal said, “If judges of the High Court can be transferred, if they give decisions in a particular way – Justice Muralidhar is an example, Justice Kureshi is an example – then why should the subordinate court judge not be afraid of his transfer?”
However, such remarks appeared less concerned with facts and more focused on creating a narrative of systemic bias. This selective outrage overlooks that the Collegium itself, not the government, plays a decisive role in judicial appointments and transfers.
Conclusion
The Congress’s insistence on proposing names like Justice Rohinton Nariman and Justice KM Joseph for the NHRC Chairperson role raises questions about their judgment and priorities. All four judges named by Congress have faced significant criticism for controversial remarks and actions that many believe undermined judicial impartiality. By championing individuals whose records have sparked debate rather than uniting, Congress’s approach seems more about political posturing than a genuine commitment to strengthening the institution.
