The first legal challenge to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism in the UK which could have broader consequences and overturn the country’s official adoption of it as the working definition of anti-semitism.
Senior consultant doctor Ranjeet Brar is making legal history by lodging a case against the British public health service (NHS) on June 5th, 2026 challenging the lawfulness of a decision to suspend him from duty.
The decision to exclude him was made by King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation in April 2026 following comments by Dr Brar at a political demonstration which prompted a complaint alleging his remarks breached the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.
The Senior Consultant’s legal case asserts that the Trust’s decision constituted a disproportionate interference with Dr Brar’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly given the political nature of the speech on matters of public interest.
The proceedings further advance a distinct ground under Article 14 ECHR, read together with Article 10, on the basis that the Government adopted and promoted the IHRA definition without consultation-contrasting with its structured and transparent consultation process for the development of the Anti‑Muslim Hostility definition.
It is contended that this differential approach, both procedurally and substantively, gives rise to unlawful discrimination and raises wider concerns about the consistent and lawful development of policies affecting fundamental rights.
If successful Dr Brar’s case would have consequences for the UK’s official adoption of the IHRA’s definition of anti-semitism on December 12th, 2016.
The case is led by Richard Clayton KC, one of the UK’s leading public law silks and Amer Rahman a Human Rights Lawyer,Partner at Farani Taylor Solicitors.
Human Rights Lawyer, Amer Rahman said:
“This claim raises issues of constitutional importance, going to the heart of both freedom of expression and equal treatment under the law.
Our client was excluded from his professional duties not for any clinical failing, but for engaging in political speech. Such speech attracts the highest level of protection under Article 10.
Freedom of expression-particularly political expression-is a cornerstone of a democratic society, essential to open debate, accountability, and the rule of law.
The position is further underscored by the Government’s approach to the Anti‑Muslim Hostility definition, which was developed through a transparent consultation process and includes explicit safeguards for freedom of expression. By contrast, the IHRA definition was promoted without equivalent procedural safeguards and, in its application, has resulted in the restriction of lawful political speech.
This divergence raises serious concerns under Article 14, read with Article 10, as to discriminatory treatment in the regulation of expression.
Public authorities must act consistently, proportionately, and with proper regard to fundamental rights. This case seeks to ensure that freedom of expression is not only protected in principle, but applied equally in practice.”
Visit www.faranitaylor.com for more information or call us at 020 7242 1666.