A Conservative peer is taking legal action against the Prime Minister after being stripped of his CBE over comments he made on social media, in a case that has reignited debate about free speech and "cancel culture".
Lord Rami Ranger, 78, who was appointed to the House of Lords in 2019 by former Prime Minister Theresa May, is seeking to have his Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) reinstated.
The businessman and founder of Sun Mark claims he has become the victim of what he describes as "cancel culture" operating behind closed doors after a government committee revoked the honour. He says he was left "deeply embarrassed and distressed" when it was announced in the London Gazette in December 2024 that "the King has directed that the CBE shall be cancelled and annulled and that his name shall be erased from the Register of the said Order".
Lord Ranger argues that the comments which led to the forfeiture of his honour were made during "heated political debate" or arose from "personal disputes" and were therefore legitimate expressions of opinion.
The peer, who built consumer goods and shipping giant Sun Mark from just £2 in starting capital, has reportedly told friends that losing the honour amounted to an "extreme penalty", particularly as he has never been convicted of a criminal offence.
He also argues that the prospect of being publicly stripped of an honour for expressing controversial views could discourage other public figures from speaking openly about issues they care deeply about.
The dispute is due to be heard in the High Court.
Free speech campaigners rally behind peer
Supporting Lord Ranger's campaign, Free Speech Union founder Lord Young of Acton said it was "beyond the pale" to "ruthlessly" strip him of his CBE over comments that were "perfectly lawful".
Lord Ranger, who serves as chairman of the British Sikh Association, received the CBE in 2016 for services to business and community cohesion. However, it was later revoked by the Forfeiture Committee, a government body established to investigate whether recipients of honours have brought the system into disrepute.
The committee operates under the oversight of the Cabinet Office, is ultimately accountable to the Prime Minister and conducts its meetings in private.
Lord Ranger took to X to share, “The freedom of speech is paramount in the United Kingdom. Once it is compromised, so will be our democracy and the rule of law. We will be expected to always behave and speak in a politically correct manner.”
Social media dispute triggered investigation
Its decision followed a ruling by the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards, which found that Lord Ranger had breached the Lords' Code of Conduct during a social media dispute with Indian journalist Poonam Joshi.
The watchdog concluded that he had harassed and bullied Joshi through a series of posts in which he referred to her as a "presstitute", a derogatory term often used in India against journalists critical of the ruling BJP government. It also found that he falsely claimed on social media that Joshi had reported her BBC presenter husband for domestic abuse.
Lord Ranger later issued a public apology after it was determined that he had used his position as a member of the House of Lords to undermine, humiliate and denigrate Joshi. He also agreed to undertake social media training.
Other controversial comments for which he had previously apologised, including remarks relating to Sikh separatists and Pakistanis, are also understood to have been considered by the Forfeiture Committee. However, while his CBE was removed, his MBE —awarded in 2005 for services to business — remains intact.
Legal challenge questions committee's powers
Lawyers representing Lord Ranger argue that the High Court case will examine the extent of the Government's power to "cancel an individual" rather than protect freedom of expression. They contend that the decision to revoke the CBE was disproportionate, based on unreliable or inaccurate information and beyond the committee's lawful authority.
Although the Forfeiture Committee has the power to recommend the removal of honours, its own guidance states that "personal disputes are not likely to be a reason to forfeit an honour". The committee routinely considers cases involving individuals who have received prison sentences, committed sexual offences or been struck off by professional bodies.
Speaking to The Telegraph, Lord Ranger's solicitor Mark Lewis said it would not be appropriate to comment in detail while proceedings were ongoing. However, he added, "It is interesting to see what, if any, legal constraints there are to governments adopting cancel culture over freedom of speech."
Wider concerns over honours forfeiture
Lord Ranger is not the only honours recipient to challenge the committee's approach. Anil Bhanot, a founding member of the Hindu Council, also lost his honour in December 2024 when his OBE was revoked over social media posts following the killing of Hindus by what he described as "mobs of Islamists" in Bangladesh.
Lord Young criticised the Forfeiture Committee, describing it as "a shadowy committee, deep in the recesses of Whitehall" that had become "an enforcer of establishment orthodoxy, ruthlessly stripping people of their honours for expressing perfectly lawful views that it regards as beyond the pale".
He warned that the threat of losing an honour for expressing controversial opinions could have a chilling effect on public debate.
"If people knew that receiving an OBE or a CBE was accompanied by a muzzle, with the risk that if you stray outside the Overton window you could lose it, I doubt many people would accept them in the first place," he said.
