Jamiat Chief cites Babri Masjid, Triple Talaq verdicts; says "Supreme Court does not deserve to be called Supreme"

Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind President Maulana Mahmood Madani has said that courts in the country seem to be working under the pressure of government in power.

Speaking to a crowd in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, Madani 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'."

At the National Governing Body meeting of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, the Jamait Chief cited some verdicts of the top court and claimed these raise questions on the integrity of the courts.

Addressing the anti-conversion law in, Maulana said the Constitution of the country provides citizens with Right to Freedom of Religion. “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…” he added.

Notably, in August 2017, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India declared the practice of triple talaq as unconstitutional.

On the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute, in 2019, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising then CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer had ordered the construction of a Ram Janmabhoomi Temple. In the Ayodhya case,the Court referenced Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India to underline that complete justice under Article 142 must be assessed in light of fundamental public policy. The Ayodhya dispute involved overlapping issues of religion, history, property rights, and societal harmony in a context where conventional statutory rules alone could not resolve the matter conclusively.

A reference to the history of the site of Ram Janmbhoomi as expounded by the High Court consistently records the destruction of a Ram temple and reuse of its materials in Babur’s mosque, underscoring that this was not a recent controversy but a long-standing grievance. By drawing on history and equity, the Supreme Court ensured that justice was not confined to rigid legalism but responsive to India’s constitutional vision.

Former Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud had also recently revisited the Ayodhya case, often criticised as a majoritarian triumph. Calling it a property dispute rather than an ideological contest, Dr. Chandrachud said: “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.”