Three leading bar associations of the Bombay High Court have filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Bombay High Court seeking protection for retired judge Justice G.S. Patel and his family members following reported threats and alleged attacks linked to his 2024 judgment in the Dawoodi Bohra succession dispute.
The PIL has been jointly instituted by the Bombay Bar Association, the Advocates Association of Western India, and the Bombay Incorporated Law Society. The petition seeks urgent judicial intervention, contending that the threats issued to Justice Patel and the alleged attacks on his family members constitute a direct assault on judicial independence and the administration of justice.
According to the petition, concerns arose after a June 8, 2026 news report stated that Justice Patel had allegedly been receiving threats since August 2025 and members of his family residing in the United Kingdom had faced a house break-in and a physical assault. The threats were allegedly connected to Justice Patel’s April 23, 2024 judgment in Taher Fakhruddin Saheb v. Mufaddal Burhanuddin Saifuddin, 2024:BHC-OS:6579 concerning the Dawoodi Bohra succession dispute.
The petition states that Justice Patel, who retired from the Bombay High Court on April 26, 2024, allegedly received unsigned letters demanding that he leave India and publicly recant his judgment by releasing a video claiming that the decision had been delivered under pressure. A subsequent letter reportedly warned that harm would be caused to his family if those demands were not met.
Referring to the pending appeal against the 2024 judgment, the bar bodies have argued that the threats are not merely directed at a retired judge but also have wider implications for the judicial system. The petition contends that attempts to force Justice Patel to withdraw or disown his ruling amount to interference with the administration of justice and could have a chilling effect on judges tasked with deciding the pending appeal.
The petition further notes that while investigations have reportedly been initiated both in Mumbai and in the United Kingdom, no significant progress appears to have been made. It argues that the perpetrators may be exploiting the jurisdictional divide between India and the UK and calls for coordinated action by Indian authorities and their counterparts abroad.
Placing reliance on the Supreme Court’s suo motu proceedings concerning the safety and security of judicial officers, the petition emphasises that judges must be able to discharge their constitutional duties without fear, intimidation or coercion. It argues that attacks and threats against judges undermine public confidence in the justice delivery system and strike at the very foundation of judicial independence.
The petitioners have sought the constitution of a Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court or High Court judge to investigate the threats and attacks. They have also sought directions to the Union Government and the State of Maharashtra to provide adequate security cover to Justice Patel and his family members, and requested the Ministry of External Affairs to coordinate with authorities in the United Kingdom to ensure their protection.
In addition, the PIL seeks broader directions regarding security arrangements for retired judges in cases where threats arise from the discharge of judicial functions, contending that there is presently no comprehensive legal framework governing such protection.