Srinagar – PDP president Mehbooba Mufti has openly criticised the tendency of Indian courts to let courtroom remarks diverge from the ultimate verdicts they deliver. She contends that observations made during hearings are often at odds with the final orders that follow.
What sparked the controversy
The debate erupted 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 take on judicial conduct
In a post on X, the former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister warned that, over the past decade, the judiciary has allowed a practice she describes as bordering on contempt of court to become routine. She pointed out a recurring pattern where judges issue forceful observations during a case, only to issue a judgment that steers in a different direction.
Link to the Form 6 debate
Mufti connected her broader grievance to the ongoing controversy surrounding the Election Commission’s revised Form 6 and the larger SIR process for updating voter registers. She argued that the gap between spoken observations and written orders erodes public trust in the roll‑revision exercise.
Political and legal fallout
The comments arrive at a time of intense political discussion about the methodology of refreshing electoral rolls and the Election Commission’s role in that task. While the legal consequences of the Supreme Court’s remarks are still being assessed, Mufti’s statements inject a distinctly political angle, urging a closer examination of judicial consistency and accountability.
