Critics of the petition and those skeptical of judicial overreach argue that matters of personal law are deeply intertwined with religious identity and should be handled through community-led reform or legislative consensus rather than court mandates. They warn that declaring long-standing religious practices unconstitutional through judicial orders could be perceived as an encroachment on the freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution. For many, the sanctity of personal law is a vital component of the cultural autonomy of minority communities.
There is also a concern that focusing exclusively on polygamy ignores the broader, more complex socioeconomic challenges faced by the community. Skeptics argue that a top-down legal ban may not address the root causes of gender inequality and could instead lead to social friction. They suggest that meaningful change should come from within the community, through education and the evolution of social norms, rather than through punitive legal measures that criminalize behavior that has been historically permitted under Sharia.
Furthermore, some legal observers caution against the 'criminalization' approach, noting that the focus should be on empowering women through better access to education and economic independence rather than simply adding more people to the prison system. They argue that the legal system should be careful not to disrupt the delicate balance between protecting individual rights and respecting the diversity of personal laws that define India's pluralistic society. The fear is that such petitions may be used to push a broader political agenda that does not necessarily reflect the diverse views of the Muslim community itself.