Srinagar – PDP leader Mehbooba Mufti has openly questioned the tendency of Indian courts to transform courtroom observations into final verdicts that often stray from the original remarks. She contends that the language used during hearings frequently diverges sharply from the judgments that are eventually delivered.
What sparked the controversy
The remarks 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 linked to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Mufti’s assessment of judicial conduct
In a post on the X platform, the former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister warned that, over the past decade, the judiciary has allowed practices she describes as bordering on contempt of court to become routine. She pointed out a recurring pattern: judges issue forceful observations while a case is being heard, only for the ultimate judgment to take a different, sometimes contradictory, direction.
Link to the Form 6 debate
Mufti tied her broader criticism to the ongoing dispute over the Election Commission’s modified Form 6 and the larger SIR exercise aimed at refreshing voter lists. She argued that the gap between courtroom commentary and final orders erodes public trust in the electoral‑roll revision process.
Political and legal fallout
The comments surface amid a fierce political debate about how electoral rolls are being updated and the role of the Election Commission in that task. While the legal implications of the Supreme Court’s observations are still being examined, Mufti’s statements inject a distinctly political angle, urging greater scrutiny of judicial consistency and accountability.
