Srinagar – PDP president Mehbooba Mufti has openly challenged the tendency of Indian courts to turn courtroom observations into conclusions that bear little resemblance to the original remarks. She contends that the language used during hearings often diverges sharply from the final judgments.
What sparked the criticism
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 in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Mufti’s broader grievance with the judiciary
In a post on X, the former J&K 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 for the ultimate verdict to take a different direction.
Link to the Form 6 debate
Mufti tied her general criticism to the controversy surrounding the Election Commission’s revised Form 6 and the wider SIR exercise aimed at updating voter lists. She argued that the gap between oral commentary and final orders erodes public trust in the roll‑revision process.
Political and legal fallout
The statements arrive amid a fierce political debate over how electoral 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 inject a distinctly political angle, urging greater scrutiny of judicial consistency and accountability.
