Srinagar – PDP president Mehbooba Mufti has openly challenged the tendency of Indian courts to let courtroom observations drift away from the ultimate judgments they issue. She contends that remarks made during hearings often bear little resemblance to the final orders that follow.
What sparked the controversy?
The debate was ignited by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s recent observation that the Supreme Court had not formally approved the Election Commission’s updated Form 6, a key component of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Mufti’s assessment 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 allowed conduct she describes as bordering on contempt of court to become routine. She pointed to 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 dispute
Mufti tied her broader criticism to the ongoing controversy surrounding the Election Commission’s revised Form 6 and the wider SIR mechanism for updating voter lists. She argued that the disconnect between oral observations and written orders erodes public trust in the electoral‑roll revision process.
Political and legal reverberations
The comments arrive amid a fierce political debate over how electoral rolls are being refreshed and the role of the Election Commission in that task. While the legal consequences of the Supreme Court’s observations are still being examined, Mufti’s statements inject a distinctly political angle, urging a closer scrutiny of judicial consistency and accountability.
