Srinagar – PDP president Mehbooba Mufti has openly questioned the tendency of Indian courts to let courtroom observations diverge from the final verdicts they eventually issue. She contends that the language used during hearings often bears little resemblance to the conclusions delivered in the judgments.
What sparked the controversy?
The debate was ignited after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarked that the Supreme Court had not formally approved the Election Commission’s updated Form 6, a key document used in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Mufti’s critique of judicial practice
In a post on the X platform, the former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister warned that, over the past decade, the judiciary has increasingly tolerated conduct she describes as bordering on contempt of court. She pointed out a recurring pattern: judges issue forceful observations while a case is being heard, only for the final judgment to chart a different course.
Link to the Form 6 debate
Mufti tied her broader criticism to the ongoing controversy surrounding the Election Commission’s revised Form 6 and the wider SIR process for updating voter lists. She argued that the disconnect between on‑the‑record commentary and the ultimate orders erodes public trust in the electoral‑roll revision mechanism.
Political and legal fallout
The comments arrive amid a heated political discourse on how electoral rolls are being refreshed and the Election Commission’s role in that undertaking. While the legal implications of the Supreme Court’s observations are still being examined, Mufti’s remarks inject a distinctly political angle, urging greater scrutiny of judicial consistency and accountability.
