By Sanjay Raman Sinha
The threats directed at Justice Gautam Patel, a retired judge of the Bombay High Court, have once again brought into sharp focus the fragile security ecosystem surrounding India’s judiciary.
At the heart of the controversy lies a long-running succession dispute within the Dawoodi Bohra community. The case revolved around competing claims to the position of the 53rd Dai al-Mutlaq, the community’s supreme spiritual leader. Taher Fakhruddin, son of the late Khuzaima Qutbuddin, challenged the claim of Mufaddal Saifuddin. After years of litigation, Justice Patel, on April 23, 2024, dismissed the suit, ruling that Saifuddin had received a valid nass—the sacred designation recognized within Bohra theology. The verdict is currently under challenge before a division bench of the Bombay High Court.
What followed has raised concerns extending far beyond the dispute itself.
Sixteen months after the judgment, a coordinated campaign of intimidation allegedly targeted Justice Patel and his family. Threatening letters were delivered simultaneously to the Mumbai residence of his wife, Malashri Patel, and to the London home of his daughter, Aditi Patel. The letters reportedly demanded that the retired judge publicly disavow his verdict through a YouTube video.
The threats escalated dramatically on April 22, 2026, when Aditi Patel was assaulted by a masked attacker on a London street, suffering a fractured nose. British counter-terrorism authorities are investigating the incident. What began as an apparent effort to intimidate a retired judge has now assumed the dimensions of a transnational security concern.
Justice Patel’s response captured the gravity of the situation. “Who will be willing to serve as a judge if they and their families face such threats for performing their judicial duty?”
His question strikes at the core of judicial independence. Courts function only when judges are able to decide cases without fear of personal consequences. When threats extend to spouses, children and family members, the integrity of the justice system itself comes under pressure.
Taher Fakhruddin’s faction has condemned the threats, describing them as an attempt to malign the group and influence ongoing appellate proceedings. Meanwhile, Justice Patel has formally informed the chief justice of India, the acting chief justice of the Bombay High Court, and the Indian High Commission in London. The Bombay Bar Association has called for a comprehensive investigation.
Yet, the larger issue extends beyond one case.
For decades, judges across India have faced threats from organised crime networks, political interests, extremist groups and disgruntled litigants. The risks are particularly acute for trial court judges who routinely handle criminal cases involving powerful vested interests.
The dangers are not hypothetical. In 2005, Additional District and Sessions Judge Vijay Singh was murdered in Patiala in an attack reportedly linked to his judicial work. In 2012, three trial judges in Delhi were attacked within a single year, prompting then Acting Chief Justice AK Sikri to order a review of judicial security arrangements.
The most chilling reminder came on July 28, 2021, when Additional District and Sessions Judge Uttam Anand was killed in Dhanbad after being deliberately struck by an auto-rickshaw while on his morning walk. The incident shocked the nation and prompted the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognisance after CCTV footage emerged.
Indian courts have consistently held that threats against judges are not merely personal attacks, but assaults on the constitutional order itself.
Through landmark decisions concerning judicial independence—including the Judges Cases and other constitutional precedents—the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that an independent judiciary is part of the Constitution’s basic structure. In Baradakanta Mishra vs High Court of Orissa, the apex court underscored that attempts to intimidate or scandalise judges undermine public confidence in the justice system.
Yet, constitutional principles have not always translated into institutional preparedness.
The Uttam Anand case exposed glaring weaknesses in the coordination between intelligence agencies, investigative bodies and local police forces. During the proceedings, then Chief Justice NV Ramana voiced rare public frustration over the lack of effective support available to judges facing threats.
Years later, many of those concerns remain unresolved.
India still lacks a dedicated national mechanism for judicial threat assessment and protection. Security arrangements for High Court and Supreme Court judges continue to rely largely on state police and ad hoc administrative decisions. Trial court judges—arguably the most exposed to criminal retaliation—often receive the least protection. After retirement, security cover is frequently reduced or withdrawn altogether, leaving judges vulnerable precisely when they may remain targets because of sensitive judgments delivered during their tenure.
The contrast with other jurisdictions is striking.
In the United States, judicial security is overseen through specialised structures such as the Judicial Security Division of the US Marshals Service. The Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act has also restricted public access to judges’ personal information, recognising that threats increasingly originate from digital and physical targeting of families.
India has yet to adopt comparable safeguards.
Personal details relating to judges—including residential addresses and family information—remain relatively accessible. The fact that threatening letters reached Justice Patel’s family homes and that an alleged attack occurred thousands of miles away in London highlights the vulnerabilities of a system not designed for modern, cross-border intimidation.
The Patel episode should serve as a wake-up call.
Traditional safeguards such as contempt jurisdiction, criminal prosecution and police protection upon request are no longer sufficient. Threats today are more sophisticated, more coordinated and increasingly transnational.
What is required is a comprehensive judicial security framework that includes specialised threat assessment, stronger intelligence coordination, privacy protections for judges and their families, and sustained post-retirement security for those who have delivered sensitive or high-profile judgments.
Threats against judges must also attract swift investigation and stronger penalties, sending an unequivocal message that intimidation of the judiciary will not be tolerated.
Ultimately, the issue is larger than the safety of one retired judge. It concerns the confidence with which every judge approaches the bench.
If those entrusted with upholding the law must fear for the safety of their families long after delivering a verdict, then the threat is not merely to individuals—it is to the independence of the judiciary itself. And when judicial independence is threatened, the rule of law is never far behind.
The post Justice Under Threat appeared first on India Legal.