They picked the wrong judge to intimidate. But the real damage could be to every citizen who depends on an independent judiciary.
The recent disclosures by retired Bombay High Court judge, Gautam Patel, about the threats and attacks on his family have crossed a dangerous line for India's judiciary, an institution already beset by serious hazards, both external and internal.
In June 2026, justice Patel revealed how a global syndicate had systematically intimidated, targeted and attacked his immediate family in London in an attempt to force him to publicly recant his landmark judgement in the decades-long Dawoodi Bohra succession dispute.
The facts are chilling. In April 2024, just before his retirement, justice Patel ruled that Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin had validly succeeded as the 53rd Dai al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohra community. The judgement was appealed. What has now emerged is that, over the following 10 months, justice Patel and his family were subjected to an extraordinary campaign of threats and blackmail.
The operation included repeated attempts to break into his daughter's London home in 2025, followed by letters delivered simultaneously in London and Mumbai demanding that justice Patel post a YouTube video recanting his verdict. The script he was asked to read would claim that his judgement had been delivered under ‘duress and coercion’, accuse the successful defendant of influencing the verdict and require him to repeat these allegations before the media and the judiciary.
When he refused, the intimidation escalated. On 22 April 2026, a masked assailant attacked his daughter near her home in London, fracturing her nose. At the time, there was no apparent link between the assault and the earlier threats. That changed on 5th June, when both, justice Patel and his daughter, received a letter enclosing body-cam footage of the attack.
The letter explicitly stated that a gang had been fully paid and that the next step would be the cremation of him and his family, including his daughter, her husband and their children, unless he complied with the earlier demands. He believes the perpetrators deliberately exploited the jurisdictional gap between Mumbai and London to frustrate prompt action by law enforcement in both countries.
His refusal to yield, supported by his family, may ultimately have resulted in a spectacular self-goal by those behind the intimidation. By sending the body-cam footage, they transformed a private campaign of coercion into a public scandal. The disclosures provoked outrage within the legal fraternity, prompted intervention by the chief justice of India (CJI) and led Bombay Bar Association to demand police protection and a comprehensive investigation.
Judicial Crisis
The attack could hardly have come at a worse time for India's judicial system. Massive case pendency, chronic delays, prohibitive litigation costs, unexplained recusals in high-profile matters and growing concerns over the quality of some judgements have steadily eroded public confidence in the higher judiciary. Controversial judicial observations about activists, NGOs (non-government organisations) and civic activists have only deepened this perception. Even the satirical launch of the ‘Cockroach Party of India’ reflected growing public frustration with the judiciary.
Against this backdrop, the attempt to intimidate a judge widely respected for his independence, Constitutional commitment and willingness to decide difficult cases without fear or favour assumes far greater significance than the facts of one dispute.
The Appeal and Its Consequences
The succession suit was originally filed by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, who claimed that he (not Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin) had been designated (nass) by the 52nd Dai, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin. After Qutbuddin's death in 2016, his son Taher Fakhruddin continued the litigation as plaintiff.
Justice Patel’s judgement concluded that the plaintiff had failed to prove the alleged nass and that the documentary and oral evidence overwhelmingly supported Syedna Mufaddal's claim. Taher Fakhruddin appealed. In December 2024, a division bench of the Bombay High Court admitted the appeal, agreed to expedite it, but also directed that, pending its disposal, the appellant should not publicly describe himself as the ‘54th Dai al-Mutlaq’ of the Bohra community.
Both sides in the litigation have strongly condemned the criminal acts and denied any involvement. It is equally possible that over-zealous followers acted independently. Yet, the episode has already proved counter-productive for those behind it.
Justice Patel’s reputation as a fiercely independent judge has united the legal fraternity in his support. The attack has also caused concern well beyond the immediate litigants, because it strikes at the independence of the judiciary itself.
The Way Forward
The appeal itself now faces an uncomfortable uncertainty. The composition of the division bench that admitted the appeal in December 2024 changed in January 2026, when one of its members recused himself because he had appeared for one of the parties before his elevation to the bench. More than six months later, a new bench is yet to be assigned.
The obvious question is: Who would willingly hear this case? Why would any judge expose his or her family to the risk of threats, intimidation or even physical attack by presiding over a dispute that has already produced such shocking consequences? Can any judge realistically be expected to do so while those responsible remain at large? Much will depend on whether the Mumbai police make meaningful progress in identifying and prosecuting the perpetrators.
Another, equally troubling, concern is that any appellate decision that deviates from justice Patel's judgement is bound to invite speculation that it may have been influenced by intimidation, coercion or inducement. Public confidence in the outcome, whichever way it goes, is now at risk. After all, judges are threatened only when other means of influence have failed.
The implications extend far beyond this litigation. The demand that a retired judge publicly recant his judgement has profound consequences for every judge called upon to decide sensitive cases involving powerful religious leaders, organised criminal syndicates, influential politicians or large corporate interests. If pressure groups conclude that judges can be reached through their spouses or children, every high-stakes case in India becomes vulnerable to extra-judicial coercion.
The State simply does not have the machinery to provide lifelong security to a large number of judges after retirement. That reality will inevitably force judges to weigh the personal cost of delivering legally correct but unpopular decisions. They will ask whether an uncompromising judgement could condemn them to permanent police protection, or worse, expose their families to intimidation years after they have demitted office. The moment such fears enter a judge's mind, the rule of law succumbs to external pressure.
Ironically, while the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 shields them from civil and criminal proceedings for acts done in the discharge of their judicial functions, it offers no protection against physical threats or violence, particularly after retirement and says nothing about cross-border intimidation. In justice Patel's case, it required the personal intervention of CJI Surya Kant to secure protection for his daughter in the United Kingdom.
If India is to maintain the perception of an independent judiciary and to prevent a sharp increase in recusals from sensitive cases, the State must treat this as a direct assault on one of three key organs of the Constitution. This not only demands enhanced security, but a thorough investigation that swiftly identifies, prosecutes and punishes those responsible.
In a public statement, justice Patel noted that the Dawoodi Bohra community operates one of the most sophisticated community management systems of any religious group in the world. It issues digital identity cards, maintains detailed records of its global membership and operates extensive intelligence networks that enable its leadership to monitor, manage and communicate with members across dozens of countries in real time. These are facts the community itself has publicised with pride. Against that backdrop, he says that it is simply not credible for either faction to claim ignorance of who within its network commissioned the violence against his family. Equally, there is little purpose in both sides professing innocence or the plaintiff alleging that the entire episode is merely an attempt to malign him and derail the appeal.
“If this campaign is allowed to succeed—or simply to continue without accountability—it sends a message to every member of the Indian judiciary who may be asked to rule on matters touching this or any other community: that doing so carries a price, payable not by the judge, but by their family. That is an attack not just on my family, but on the integrity of the Indian judicial system itself,” he warns.
This is one of those cases when the State's response will matter more than the crime itself. If the investigation ends in another unsolved file, the message will be that in highly sensitive cases, courtroom will not be the only place where verdicts are contested.
Karma comes back. But on the wrong judge. I have been constantly threatened by City Civil Court judge for custody, jail in my proceedings bcos i m appearing party in person and maybe this judge is hand in glove with my opponents advocates as they are big shots. This is the way, God is telling all the judges that do not threat common people in courts, do not unnecessary drag the cases and dont be puppet in the hands of fixers and do justice speedily unbiased.
It is pertinent to note that considering the threats began more than 10 months ago, Justice Patel went on record on national television to declare the same only in June 2026 ! The timing of the disclosure is significant because the appeal is about to resume after the summer vacation. So was this done to deliberately cast aspersions and derail the appeal by vested interests ? Definitely worth giving more than a thought....
I sincerely hope the long arm of the law is able to bring the perpetrators of these threats to justice quickly and decisively so that nobody ever dreams of such impudence ever and justice is delivered fairly by all Judges.
Why jump to the WORST conclusions when the column has clearly explained why they went public in June? Read: "That changed on 5th June, when both, justice Patel and his daughter, received a letter enclosing body-cam footage of the attack." UNTIL then complaints have been made to the police and all concerned. Is it your case that everybody threatened should immedialy call a press conference? Here too, he answered media queries only.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
1-year online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
30-day online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
Complete access to Moneylife archives since inception ( till the date of your subscription )
