The Supreme Court on Tuesday took serious objection to the constant threats and attacks faced by former Bombay High Court judge Justice (Retd) Gautam Patel and his family, observing that no judge can deliver any judgment if they are openly threatened for their judgements.
Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Sanjeev Sachdeva said: “We have read in newspapers that judges who issue judgments are facing threats. No judge can deliver any judgment in this way.”
The court made the observation while hearing a bail plea of a habitual offender who attacked the residence of a district magistrate in Madhya Pradesh’s Anuppur district to deny him bail in a separate criminal case.
The Supreme Court referred to the news report showing how the daughter of a former High Court judge and her family in London were threatened and even assaulted over a ruling by Justice Patel in 2024.
HT first reported the matter on Monday and highlighted the series of threats received by the judge’s family, the last of which was on June 5.
The 2024 ruling addressed the issue of succession in the Dawoodi Bohra community. The ruling declared Syedna Mufaddal Sayf al-Din as the rightful claimant to the position of da’i al-Mutlaq (spiritual head) of the community following the death of his father, Syedna Muhammad Burhan al-Din in 2014. Syedna Tahir Fakhr al-Din, the half-brother son of Syedna Khuzaymah Qutb al-Din, disputed Syedna’s claim to be the spiritual head.
The threat received by Judge Patel’s family required him to make a YouTube video retracting his ruling. Because the judge did not comply with these demands, the judge’s daughter was assaulted in London in April. She received another threat via letter dated June 5.
The threats began in September, when the judge’s wife in Mumbai and his daughter in London received similar messages. UK police are investigating the threats against the daughter, and are treating the attack on her as a terrorist incident.
“The daughter or grandson of the retired judge did not do anything. We have to take these things into consideration,” the Supreme Court said on Tuesday. In the specific case it was considering, it directed accused Priyanshu Singh to withdraw and file a fresh bail petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
According to an HT report, the Bombay Bar Association (BBA) passed an eight-point resolution on June 8 condemning the attack and threats issued to the former judge and his family, and the BBA even urged the Union government to take up the matter with the authorities in the UK to ensure the safety of the Patel family. She said that such threats and acts of violence strike at the core of judicial independence and constitute a blatant assault on the rule of law. She added that such behavior is not an attack on an individual judge, but rather on the institution of the judiciary and on the constitutional promise that courts will resolve disputes without fear, favour, favor or ill faith.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice (retd) Abhay S Oka described the order as a “direct attack on the independence of the judiciary”.
“I was shocked when I read the Hindustan Times news report about the serious threats against Justice Gautam Patel and his family. As the report reveals, these are not just threats. In my opinion, this is a direct attack on the independence of the judiciary,” he said.
He added: “Given the seriousness of the attack on the independence of the judiciary, it may be appropriate for the Supreme Court to consider taking action on its own.”
In the Madhya Pradesh case, the incident in question took place in October 2025 when Singh, along with two of his associates, indulged in stone-pelting and vandalism at the official residence of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) and Civil Judge Amandeep Singh Chhabra at Palumada.
In his complaint submitted to the police, the judge described the painful experience he endured when stones were pelted at his house shortly after midnight. The accused fled the scene, but the police later arrested him. They later revealed that the attack was directed against the judge for denying bail to Singh in another case almost six months ago.
Singh approached the Supreme Court after the high court rejected his bail plea on May 11.
