Srinagar – PDP president Mehbooba Mufti has openly criticised the tendency of Indian courts to turn courtroom commentary into judgments that bear little resemblance to the original observations. She contends that remarks made during hearings are often at odds with the final orders that follow.
What sparked the debate
Her comments came after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant noted 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 indictment of judicial habits
In a post on X, the former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister warned that, over the last decade, the judiciary has allowed behaviour she describes as bordering on contempt of court to become routine. She pointed to a recurring pattern where judges issue forceful observations during a hearing, only to issue a judgment that diverges from those remarks.
Link to the Form 6 controversy
Mufti tied her broader criticism to the ongoing dispute over the Election Commission’s revised Form 6 and the larger SIR exercise aimed at updating voter lists. She argued that the gap between oral observations and final rulings erodes public trust in the electoral‑roll revision process.
Political and legal fallout
The statements arrive at a moment of intense political debate over how voter rolls are being refreshed and the Election Commission’s role in that task. While the legal implications of the Supreme Court’s observations are still being examined, Mufti’s remarks add a sharp political edge, urging greater scrutiny of judicial consistency and accountability.
