Apart from his role as a judge, he also worked in various government departments such as at the Secretary to the Government of Gujarat for legal affairs in June 1974. Later, he was appointed as the High Court judge of Gujarat on September 2nd 1976 for his credible work.He is regarded as one of the exceptional judges who made it to the supreme court from the subordinate courts.
He was the head of Advisory Board under COFEPOSA Act 1974. Similarly, he was on the Advisory Board under Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980. He also presided over the Ravi and beas water disputes Tribunal in Rajiv- longowal settlement.
In 1988, he was appointed as the Supreme Court judge and during this time he also presided over the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee in 1989 and the Executive Chairman of the Committee for implementing Legal Aid Schemesin India from 1990 to 1994. Subsequently, he patronized many Legal Aid schemes in India.
He was designated as the Chief Justice of India on October 25, 1994. Thus, he became the third Muslim judge to serve as Chief Justice of India. He was honoured with the Honorary Doctorate degree from University of Kurukshetra on February 27th 1994. Similarly, even Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and University of Kanpur bestowed upon him similar doctorated degrees in 1995. Justice Ahmadi retired on March 24th 1997.
He has written a book titled “Guide to Uplift Minorities.”In this way, he has voiced concerns over minority rights and has pushed forre forms. He has been a strong pro-pounder of education as the basis for social and economic development.
In the case of M Ismailfaruqui v. Union of India, 1995, he was on the bench which decided the question of whether acquisition of religious places by the state isvalid under the law. He gave a dissenting opinion in this judgement by stating that religious places are immovable properties which are to be protected under articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Therefore, State’s acquisition of these properties would adversely affect the religious interests of the people who worship in such religious places.
One of his notable judgments is the case of Keshub Mahindra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1996, where the question before the court was whether the Bhopal Gas tragedy was a case to be registered under section 304A of IPC or section 304 of IPC. The Court held that section 304A (Causing death by negligence, not amounting to culpable homicide) is applicable and not section 304 (for causing death by culpable homicide not amounting murder.)