Jamiat President Maulana Mahmood Madani criticised recent top court rulings, saying the judiciary is working under government pressure. He claimed the Supreme Court has failed to uphold constitutional values in cases like Babri Masjid and triple talaq.
Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind President Maulana Mahmood Madani has strongly criticised the judiciary, saying that courts in India appear to be working under the influence of the ruling government. Speaking at a large gathering in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, he said,
“…After the verdict into Babri Masjid, triple talaq and several other matters, it seems that courts are functioning under Government’s pressure for a few years now…We have several instances before that have raised questions on the character of courts…Supreme Court is eligible to be called supreme only when it follows the Constitution and when it upholds the law. If it doesn’t do that, it doesn’t deserve to be called ‘Supreme’.”
During the National Governing Body meeting of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, Madani pointed to several Supreme Court judgments that, according to him, raise doubts about the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
While speaking about anti-conversion laws passed in different states, he highlighted that the Constitution gives every citizen the Right to Freedom of Religion, but the way these laws are implemented is causing fear and uncertainty.
He said these laws are being used to restrict genuine religious practice, while certain groups are allowed to carry out conversion-related activities freely.
Referring to this, he stated,
“But through the Conversion Law, this fundamental right is being finished off. This law is being used in a manner in which practising a religion becomes liable to fear and punishment. On the other hand, in the name of ‘Ghar Wapasi’, those converting people into a particular religion have a free hand. They are not questioned, and no legal action is taken against them…”
Madani’s comments come in the backdrop of two major Supreme Court judgments—triple talaq and the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute. In August 2017, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Shayara Bano v. Union of India struck down the practice of triple talaq as unconstitutional.
This ruling was considered a landmark step in protecting Muslim women’s rights, but Madani suggested that such decisions add to his concerns about judicial independence.
In 2019, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of then CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S.A. Bobde, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer delivered the historic verdict in the Ayodhya title dispute.
The Court directed the construction of the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple at the disputed site. While explaining the background, the judgment referred to the long and complex history of the land.
Findings recorded by the Allahabad High Court had pointed to the destruction of an earlier Ram temple and the use of its remains in the structure built by Babur, suggesting that this was a centuries-old conflict and not a contemporary political issue.
The Supreme Court also relied on principles from Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India to emphasise that the use of power under Article 142—meant to deliver complete justice—must be connected to broader public policy and constitutional values.
The Court adopted a balance of legal principles, historical records and equitable considerations, stating that property rights, religious claims and social harmony were so interconnected that statutory rules alone could not solve the issue.
The approach attempted to avoid strict legal formalism and instead aimed to deliver justice consistent with the Constitution’s vision of fairness and unity.
Interestingly, former Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud recently revisited the Ayodhya judgment and responded to criticism that it was a “majoritarian” decision. Calling the dispute a matter of legal title rather than ideology, he said that many critics comment without actually reading the detailed findings.
Speaking about this, he stated,
“Read the judgment… The problem is, most of the people who attack us don’t have the time, the patience, or the inclination to read 1045 pages judgment. Why was it 1045 pages – because the record was 30,000 pages.”
Madani’s remarks have once again sparked a debate on judicial independence, constitutional freedoms and the role of courts in politically sensitive matters. His comments reflect growing concerns, especially among minority groups, about the direction of recent judicial trends.
At the same time, the judiciary maintains that its decisions are based strictly on constitutional principles, extensive evidence and legal reasoning.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Jamiat Chief
