Rights Are Equal. Influence Is Not.

The Social Contract Between Celebrities and Society

When news emerged that Aamir Khan had married for the third time at the age of 61, public opinion predictably split into two opposing camps. One group defended his decision as a matter of personal liberty, arguing that every adult has the right to choose how to live, whom to marry, and how to pursue happiness. The other questioned whether such a decision, coming from one of India’s most celebrated actors, sends the right message to a society that continues to value marriage as a lifelong commitment and the family as its most fundamental institution.

As is often the case with social media debates, both sides generated more heat than light. The discussion quickly became about judging one individual rather than examining the larger principle. Yet the more interesting question is not whether Aamir Khan had the legal right to remarry. He unquestionably did. Every citizen in a democratic society enjoys the same personal freedoms under the law, and those freedoms deserve respect. The real question is whether individuals who command extraordinary public influence also carry responsibilities that extend beyond what the law requires.

My answer is yes.

Modern democracies are built on the principle that rights are equal for every citizen. Whether one is a school teacher, a factory worker, an entrepreneur, an actor or a sportsperson, the law must protect individual liberty equally. However, while rights are equal, influence is not. A university professor shapes hundreds of young minds over a career. A CEO influences thousands of employees. A film star or a cricket icon, however, reaches tens or even hundreds of millions of people across generations. Such influence is a form of power, and every form of power carries responsibilities that cannot be legislated but are nonetheless real.

This is where the relationship between celebrities and society deserves closer examination. Celebrities are often correct when they argue that their personal lives are private. Yet their public lives are anything but private. Their careers are built on admiration, trust, and an emotional connection with millions of people. More importantly, those careers are sustained by the very people who admire them. Every cinema ticket purchased, every streaming subscription renewed, every stadium seat occupied, every product bought because of a celebrity endorsement, and every hour spent consuming entertainment contributes to the celebrity economy. The wealth, fame and influence enjoyed by actors, sportspersons and entertainers are not created in isolation; they are financed by millions of ordinary citizens who choose to support them.

In that sense, the relationship between celebrities and society is not one of dependence by fans upon celebrities. It is a social contract built on mutual exchange. Celebrities entertain, inspire and create artistic value. Society rewards them with admiration, financial success, public visibility and influence. Without audiences, there would be no blockbusters, no record endorsement deals, no sold-out concerts and no sporting icons commanding extraordinary commercial value. Society does not merely admire celebrities; it creates them.

It follows, therefore, that influence cannot be viewed simply as a reward without corresponding obligations. The greater the public trust, the greater the expectation that such trust will be exercised responsibly. This does not mean celebrities must become moral saints or surrender their personal freedoms. It does mean that they should recognise that their choices — whether personal or professional — carry consequences far beyond their immediate circles.

The distinction between private conduct and public influence is important. Personal decisions, such as marriage or remarriage, belong primarily within the sphere of individual liberty. Society should resist the temptation to police private lives. At the same time, it is unrealistic to expect that public figures can completely separate their private choices from the public image upon which their careers are built. Whether fair or unfair, credibility is shaped not only by professional excellence but also by the values people perceive in those they admire.

The question becomes even more compelling when celebrities intentionally monetise public trust through endorsements. When an actor or sportsperson agrees to promote a product, that is no longer a private decision. It is a deliberate commercial act designed to influence millions of consumers. Companies do not pay celebrities because they possess unique expertise in nutrition, healthcare or finance. They pay them because people trust them. That trust has economic value, and celebrities willingly convert it into commercial gain.

This is why debates around endorsements of products such as pan masala, sugary soft drinks, highly processed snack foods, surrogate advertising for alcohol brands, online gaming platforms or other socially contentious products continue to provoke strong public reactions. The issue is not merely legality. Many such campaigns comply with existing regulations. The deeper question is ethical: should individuals who command enormous public trust use that influence to encourage consumption of products whose broader social consequences remain contested? Society is entitled to ask that question because it is society that has bestowed that influence in the first place.

The same principle applies when celebrities speak on social, political or moral issues. Every citizen has the constitutional right to express opinions. Celebrities are no exception. Yet when public figures choose to advocate particular values, audiences naturally examine whether those values are reflected in their own conduct. This is not an unreasonable expectation. We expect consistency from judges because they interpret the law. We expect it from teachers because they educate young minds. We expect it from political leaders because they exercise public authority. It is therefore unsurprising that society also expects consistency from celebrities whose influence extends into millions of homes every single day.

None of this is an argument against personal freedom. Nor is it an invitation to moral policing. Democracies thrive precisely because individuals are free to make choices that others may not always approve of. The point is not that celebrities should seek society’s permission before making personal decisions. The point is that they cannot reasonably expect society to separate those decisions entirely from the trust, admiration and credibility upon which their public lives and commercial success are built.

Aamir Khan’s third marriage is, ultimately, his personal decision. Like every other citizen, he is entitled to make that choice without legal interference. Yet the public debate surrounding it reveals something far more significant than the life of one actor. It exposes the tension between two equally important democratic values: individual liberty and social responsibility. Rights belong equally to every citizen, but influence does not. Those who enjoy extraordinary public influence also inherit extraordinary public responsibility — not because the law demands it, but because society inevitably does.

Perhaps that is the real lesson from this debate. Celebrities do not merely entertain society; they shape aspirations, influence behaviour and help define cultural norms. Their success is made possible by the trust and admiration of millions of ordinary people. That trust is both a privilege and a responsibility. The law may protect their freedom, but society will always reserve the right to evaluate how they choose to use the influence it has given them.

Rights are equal. Influence is not. And with extraordinary influence comes an extraordinary responsibility that no court can enforce, but every society has the right to expect.