Key facts
- A British surgeon, Dr. Ranjeet Brar, is launching a legal challenge against the NHS and UK government.
- Brar argues the adoption and application of the IHRA definition of antisemitism restricts political speech, particularly pro-Palestine expression.
- He was suspended from his role after a speech where he described Israel as a "genocidal settler colonial entity" and stated it "needs to be wiped off the map".
- The legal claim asserts that the IHRA definition's use in his suspension is a disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of expression.
- The challenge also contends that the IHRA definition's application is discriminatory compared to frameworks addressing anti-Muslim hatred.
- The British Medical Association recently voted to reject the IHRA definition due to concerns about its impact on free speech in the workplace.
A British surgeon, Dr. Ranjeet Brar, has initiated a legal challenge against the National Health Service (NHS) and the UK government, asserting that the implementation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism infringes upon freedom of expression and unfairly targets pro-Palestine sentiment.
Dr. Brar's suspension from King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust followed a speech on April 6, 2026, where he characterized Israel as a "genocidal settler colonial entity" and stated it "needs to be wiped off the map and replaced with the word ‘Palestine’". Footage of the speech was disseminated online, leading to complaints that his remarks could be interpreted as antisemitic. Although arrested, Brar was released without charge.
The legal action, filed at the High Court, argues that the Trust's use of the IHRA definition in suspending Brar constitutes a disproportionate interference with his Article 10 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The challenge further contends that the IHRA framework lacks comparable protections for criticism of Israel when contrasted with guidelines on anti-Muslim hatred, amounting to unlawful discrimination under Article 14.
Amer Rahman, Brar's lawyer, highlighted the case's constitutional importance, emphasizing the need for public authorities to act proportionately and protect fundamental rights. He warned that the IHRA definition risks mischaracterizing support for Palestinian rights as racism, thereby chilling legitimate public debate.
This case follows a similar judicial review filed by Methodist preacher Bea Foster, who was removed from a charity role over a Facebook post describing Israel as an apartheid state. The IHRA definition, originally a non-binding tool, has increasingly been applied in institutional settings, with critics like its author Kenneth Stern and rights expert Geoffrey Robertson QC warning it can restrict legitimate political expression.
A 2023 report by the European Legal Support Centre indicated that the IHRA definition has disproportionately affected workers and activists, including people of color and Jewish supporters of Palestine, sometimes leading to disciplinary actions and job losses. NHS England adopted the definition in October 2025.
Dr. Brar's situation is part of a broader trend of British doctors facing scrutiny over criticism of Israel's actions. The Department of Health and Social Care has endorsed a review into antisemitism in the NHS, which relies on the IHRA definition and recommends mandatory training and restrictions on political expression for staff. Concurrently, the British Medical Association voted to reject the IHRA definition, citing concerns about its chilling effect on free speech and its potential to restrict lawful political expression.