Right to Protest ltd. is launching a Judicial Review to challenge the IHRA definition of antisemitism in the UK, as it is being applied to police free speech in Britain, outlaw opposition to genocide as “racist”.

On 6 April 2026, Dr Ranjeet Brar, director of Right to Protest Limited, was suspended by his employer, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, for his statement made against Israel, the US and British government’s illegal war and genocide, during his speech at a memorial event for 186 primary schoolchildren murdered in a ‘double tap’ strike on a school in Minab, Iran. Clive Kay, the chief executive of King’s College Hospital NHS trust, made a statement which was reproduced by UKLFI and printed in the press, accusing Dr Brar of racism.

Hussain Shafiei, the second claimant, joins the challenge on the basis that the application of the IHRA definition has a broader impact on public discourse. He contends that its use discourages open discussion of matters of public concern and contributes to a chilling effect on freedom of expression and discrimination, particularly against certain communities. This raises wider concerns about participation in public debate, equal treatment, and the effective exercise of Convention rights.

They are bringing a judicial review to challenge how the non-statutory IHRA definition of antisemitism has been adopted and applied within the NHS and other public bodies. This challenge raises issues of constitutional importance, including freedom of expression, procedural fairness, equality and non-discrimination, and the proper limits of relying on non-statutory guidance in public decision-making.

The Government adopted the IHRA definition without a process comparable to that used for defining anti-Muslim Hostility definition, raising arguable issues of fairness and consistency. This difference in approach may lead to unequal restrictions on lawful speech, engaging Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read alongside Article 10.

Regulators and public bodies are increasingly relying on the non-statutory IHRA definition to restrict lawful speech, despite repeated warnings that it is not a legal test and should not be used to police expression. This has led to censorship, disciplinary threats, and a growing culture of silence across public institutions.

This legal challenge defends freedom of expression, professional integrity, and the right to speak without fear. It seeks to ensure that public bodies including the NHS remains a space guided by ethics, evidence, and humanity—not political pressure or intimidation.

[RT]