Lawyers representing Dr Ranjeet Brar have filed a judicial review claim at the High Court against King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, challenging the use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism to suspend him in breach of his right to freedom of expression.
Dr Brar, who is also director of Right to Protest Limited, was suspended by the Trust on 6 April 2026 following a speech he delivered at a memorial for 168 children killed in a US Tomahawk cruise missile strike on the Minab primary school in Iran. His legal team contends that the IHRA definition was deployed to justify the suspension.
The claim is brought under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of expression, and Article 14, which prohibits discrimination. The discrimination ground centres on a significant disparity in how the government adopted the IHRA definition compared to the equivalent definition of anti-Muslim hostility.
The latter, developed through a separate and more consultative process, includes an express guarantee protecting the right to criticise Islam as a religion or Muslim culture and history. No equivalent safeguard — protecting the right to criticise Israel or Israeli government policy — was attached to the IHRA definition when the then prime minister Theresa May adopted it in 2016.
“Criticism of Israel is not, and has never been, anti-Jewish hatred,” said a member of Dr Brar’s legal team. “Israel is a state — like any other state — with a founding history, a military, a parliament, and policies that are legitimate subjects of political debate. We defend the right of any British citizen to say that Israel’s creation involved the dispossession of the Palestinian people — that is a historical statement based on fact, not a racist one. To conflate the two is to undermine genuine antisemitism, silence Palestine solidarity, and erode free speech for everyone.”
READ: Judicial review launched against NHS for adopting ‘weaponised’ anti-Semitism definition
The case forms part of a growing legal and academic challenge to how the IHRA definition has been applied since its adoption by governments and institutions across the United Kingdom. Kenneth Stern, the American attorney who drafted the original definition in 2005, has repeatedly warned that the document he authored — intended to help European data-collectors track and compare reports of anti-Jewish hostility — has been misused as a political instrument to suppress lawful criticism of Israel.
“Jewish groups have used the definition as a weapon to say anti-Zionist expressions are inherently anti-Semitic and must be suppressed,” Stern wrote. He has urged governments and institutions not to adopt the definition as a legal or policy enforcement tool, warning it poses a serious threat to free expression on university campuses and beyond.
READ: Controversial ‘anti-Semitism code’ being ‘weaponised’ by pro-Israel groups, warns drafter
Seven of the eleven examples contained within the IHRA definition relate to Israel, and critics — including many Jewish scholars — argue the definition conflates criticism of Israeli state policy with racial hatred against Jewish people. A Texas federal judge ruled in 2024 that enforcing the IHRA definition restricts constitutionally protected speech, and New York’s mayor overturned IHRA-based guidance earlier this year.
Dr Brar’s legal challenge argues that the absence of a free speech safeguard in the IHRA definition — combined with the government’s failure to ensure parity with the anti-Muslim hostility definition — has created what his team describes as a “chilling effect” on lawful political expression, disproportionately affecting those who advocate for Palestinian rights. The legal challenge is being handled by Farani Taylor Solicitors.
Once both parties have filed their responses, the court will determine whether to grant permission for a full hearing.
A CrowdJustice campaign has been launched to fund the case, covering solicitors’ fees, counsel’s fees, and court disbursements. As of the filing date, £26,998 has been raised towards a £60,000 target.
Those who wish to support the challenge can donate at: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/legal-challenge-against-the-ih
Media enquiries can be directed to: [email protected]
READ: Controversial IHRA definition and anti-constitutional BDS orders overturned by New York mayor
