British Indian Tory peer Lord Rami Ranger MBE has launched an unprecedented legal challenge against the revocation of his CBE (Commander of the Order of the British Empire), becoming the first person to take the UK government to court over the withdrawal of a chivalric honour.
The multi-millionaire businessman and founder of shipping firm Sun Mark brought proceedings against Prime Minister Keir Starmer in the High Court's Administrative Court, arguing that the decision to strip him of his CBE was unlawful and should be quashed.
In an interview with Asian Voice, Lord Ranger MBE explains why he decided to challenge the decision, where he believes the line should be drawn between controversial speech and conduct that brings the honours system into disrepute, and why he believes the case has constitutional significance.
Why was it important for you to challenge the decision rather than accept it?
The grounds they cited for revoking my honour were absurd. Are they saying that, as a parliamentarian, I have no right to speak my mind? Does receiving an honour mean you lose your freedom of expression?
There were essentially three issues. One was my opposition to Khalistani extremists. I am a Sikh myself and chairman of the British Sikh Association. How could I possibly be anti-Sikh? The second issue was the BBC documentary The Modi Question. I wrote to the BBC's Director-General because I believed it was unfair and unbalanced. The third issue was comments I made comparing the Indian and Pakistani diasporas.
I express my views openly, and whether people agree with them or not, I did not break any law or commit any crime. I believe this is a constitutional matter because the authorities claim that the granting and revocation of honours is entirely discretionary. I disagree.
The authorities also failed to follow their own procedures. For example, there was a defamation case brought against me by Sikhs for Justice that was ultimately dismissed. Yet before the courts had reached a conclusion, they had effectively already found me guilty. Everything about the process was flawed.
Looking back, do you think there is anything you could have done differently in the way you expressed your views?
I am not a saint. I am a businessman and a public figure. Inevitably, I have been involved in controversies. Whenever I believe something is not right or not in the public interest, I speak out. If receiving an honour meant giving up my freedom of speech, I would never have accepted it in the first place. Freedom of speech is far more important to me than any award.
I have had disagreements before. I challenged the Conservative Party when I believed it was not offering safe seats to Asian candidates. I was suspended from the party and later reinstated. That is part of public life. No two people agree on everything. We may all see the same thing, yet interpret it differently. That diversity of opinion is part of democracy.
Where do you think the line lies between controversial speech and conduct that genuinely brings the honours system into disrepute?
I would accept the decision if I had committed a crime, broken the law, or been convicted by a court for wrongdoing. But if I simply speak my mind or say something that someone disagrees with, there are already legal remedies available. If I make a false allegation, that person can take me to court for libel.
The honours system should not be policing people's opinions or regulating how individuals disagree with one another. Personal disagreements should not become grounds for the honours system to dictate that, unless you say what it approves of, your honour will be taken away.
Do you think there should be greater transparency in how honours are revoked?
If there is no transparency, there is no accountability, and if there is no accountability, there is no rule of law. Anybody can write letters making accusations. In my case, Khalistani activists wrote letter after letter claiming that I was anti-Sikh, and the authorities simply believed them. They did not even ask me for my side of the story.
When I did provide an explanation, their attitude was: "We have supreme power and we can do whatever we like." I said, "Fine, if that's how you think, we are living in a civilised country. I will knock on the door of the law and use it to protect my civil liberties."
There is a saying: absolute power corrupts absolutely. People talk about the Prime Minister or the King, but neither of them had anything to do with this. It was civil servants who, in my opinion, misled them into recommending that my hard-earned honour be withdrawn after decades of work.
I have built one of the most decorated businesses in the United Kingdom and sustained more than a thousand British jobs. I have devoted myself to charitable causes. I supported the installation of the Gandhi statue in Parliament Square. I helped establish the Pakistan-India Friendship Forum to promote peace and combat extremism in the subcontinent. I have devoted myself to charitable causes, supported educational institutions, promoted peace initiatives and mentored young people.
There is so much that I have done, yet all of it was ignored. That is why I believe they overstepped the mark. I have lived in the United Kingdom for 56 years. I have embraced the values of this country, and for me, freedom of speech is sacrosanct. It cannot be compromised.
