SRINAGAR, Oct. 6
Peoples Democratic Party president Mehbooba Mufti on Tuesday criticised the judiciary, alleging that acts which could amount to contempt of court had been “normalised” over the past decade and questioning whether strong observations made during court proceedings were always reflected in final judgments.
The former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister made the remarks after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant clarified that the Supreme Court had not approved the Election Commission of India’s modified Form 6 linked to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
Reacting to the development in a post on X, Mehbooba argued that there could be a difference between what courts say during hearings and the eventual outcome of cases.
Her comments were directed at the continuing controversy over the Election Commission’s handling of Form 6 and the SIR exercise. The remarks represent her political assessment of the issue and do not constitute a judicial finding against the Election Commission or the judiciary. Earth News
The immediate dispute concerns changes associated with Form 6, which is used for applications seeking inclusion in electoral rolls.
The Supreme Court has said it will examine the Election Commission’s records to establish whether changes were made to the form and, if so, who authorised them.
The clarification assumes importance because the Election Commission’s handling of the SIR process has become the subject of political criticism and judicial scrutiny.
Mehbooba used the latest proceedings to raise a broader question about the relationship between observations made by courts during hearings and their eventual judgments.
She alleged that conduct that could amount to contempt had repeatedly been normalised during the past decade. The report did not identify specific cases cited by her in support of that wider assertion. Earth News
Her criticism comes as the Election Commission faces challenges over aspects of the electoral-roll revision process.
The poll body has maintained its position regarding the SIR exercise and the decisions taken as part of the revision of electoral rolls.
The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has stopped short of reaching a conclusion on the disputed Form 6 issue.
Instead, it has indicated that the Election Commission’s official records will be examined to determine what changes were made and how they were authorised.
That distinction is central to the current proceedings. The court’s clarification that it had not approved the modified Form 6 does not by itself determine whether the Election Commission acted unlawfully. That question will depend on the records and legal arguments placed before the Bench.
Mehbooba’s intervention brings a political dimension to that judicial examination.
As PDP president and a former Chief Minister, she has frequently criticised decisions of the Centre and constitutional institutions on issues affecting Jammu and Kashmir. In this instance, however, her remarks specifically follow the Supreme Court’s clarification concerning Form 6.
The controversy is also unfolding amid a wider political confrontation over the SIR process, with opposition parties questioning aspects of electoral-roll revision and the Election Commission defending its procedures.
The Supreme Court’s examination of the official record could provide greater clarity on the narrower legal question at the centre of the dispute: whether Form 6 was modified, the authority under which any changes were made and whether the prescribed decision-making process was followed.
Until that examination is completed, allegations concerning improper authorisation remain contested.
Mehbooba’s broader criticism of the judiciary similarly remains her stated political view. The immediate judicial proceedings are focused on the Election Commission’s records and the circumstances surrounding Form 6 rather than on her wider claims about the functioning of the courts over the past decade.
