Srinagar – The president of the PDP, Mehbooba Mufti, has openly questioned the tendency of Indian courts to turn courtroom observations into conclusions that diverge from the final verdicts. She contends that remarks made during hearings often bear little resemblance to the judgments that follow.
What sparked the controversy
The exchange was triggered by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s recent comment that the Supreme Court had not formally approved the Election Commission’s amended Form 6, a key document linked to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Mufti’s criticism of judicial conduct
In a post on the social‑media platform X, the former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister warned that, over the last decade, the judiciary has repeatedly allowed behaviour she describes as bordering on contempt of court to become routine. She pointed out a recurring pattern: judges issue forceful observations while hearing a matter, only for the eventual judgment to head in a different direction.
Link to the Form 6 debate
Mufti tied her broader grievance to the ongoing dispute over the Election Commission’s updated Form 6 and the larger SIR exercise aimed at refreshing voter lists. She argued that the gap between oral commentary in courtrooms and the final orders erodes public trust in the electoral‑roll revision process.
Broader political and legal fallout
The statements come at a time 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 weighed, Mufti’s remarks inject a clearly political angle, urging a closer scrutiny of judicial consistency and accountability.
