President Droupadi Murmu on Monday named former Supreme Court judge V Ramasubramanian as the chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission, amid allegations from the Congress that the appointment was made without adequate consultation.

The commission is a statutory body established under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. It is responsible for protecting and promoting human rights, and can investigate human rights violations by the government and public servants.

Ramasubramanian’s appointment came months after Justice (retired) Arun Kumar Mishra completed his tenure as the chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission on June 1. Vijaya Bharathi Sayani, a member of the committee, became the acting chairperson after Mishra, PTI reported.

A former chief justice or a retired Supreme Court judge is appointed as the chairperson of the committee based on the recommendations of a selection panel. This panel is headed by the prime minister and includes the speaker of the Lok Sabha, the home minister, the leader of the Opposition in both Houses of Parliament and the deputy chairperson of the Rajya Sabha.

The selection panel held a meeting on December 18 to appoint the chairperson, according to the news agency.

Congress MPs say selection process ‘fundamentally flawed’

At the meeting of the selection panel on December 18, Congress MPs Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi, both leaders of the opposition in Parliament, expressed their disagreement over Ramasubramanian’s appointment as the chairperson, The Indian Express reported.

The two leaders submitted a dissent note that said that the process for choosing the chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission was “fundamentally flawed”. They said that the selection process was a “pre-determined” exercise that ignored mutual consultation and consensus.

Kharge and Gandhi had proposed the names of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Kuttiyil Mathew Joseph for the position, according to the newspaper.

“It was a pre-determined exercise that ignored the established tradition of mutual consultation and consensus, which is essential in such matters,” Kharge and Gandhi said. “This departure undermines the principles of fairness and impartiality, which are critical to the credibility of the selection committee.”

The panel relied on its numerical majority to finalise the names instead of ensuring a collective decision, the Congress MPs said, adding that this disregarded the legitimate concerns raised during the meeting.

The dissent note said that maintaining a balance that reflected the regional, caste, community and religious diversity of the nation was as important as merit for the selection panel.

“This balance ensures that the NHRC [National Human Rights Commission] operates with an inclusive perspective, sensitive to the lived experiences of all sections of society,” the note said. “By neglecting this critical principle, the committee risks eroding public trust in this esteemed institution.”