Days after reports emerged that he was preparing to seek legal relief, Bollywood actor Imran Khan has now formally approached the Bombay High Court against the central government’s directive ordering him to leave the country.
As previously reported when actor Imran Khan planned to move the Bombay High Court against the notice to leave India, the dispute began after his brief detention during a street demonstration in Mumbai. Now, his legal challenge has officially landed before the court, raising serious questions about executive power, natural justice, and the statutory protections guaranteed to Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholders.
The Background: Protests, Police Action, and an Expulsion Notice
Imran Khan, an American national who has lived in India for more than forty years and held an OCI registration since 2006, was directed by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) to leave India by October 28. The order was issued under Section 7(2)(c) read with Section 29 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.
The administrative action followed his brief detention by the Mumbai police during a demonstration against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Shortly after the protest, Bharatiya Janata Party leader Kirit Somaiya lodged a First Information Report (FIR) at the Gamdevi police station. The complaint alleged minor public-order violations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Although police released Khan the very same evening, the FRRO issued an exit directive on October 14. This was quickly followed by a separate show-cause notice on October 17 asking why his OCI status should not be cancelled under Section 7D of the Citizenship Act.
What Imran Khan’s Petition Argues
In his petition titled Imran Khan Pal v. Union of India & Ors, Khan contends that the FRRO acted with excessive haste and bypassed essential legal safeguards. He argues that executive authorities yielded to social media outrage and political campaigns rather than carrying out an independent legal assessment.
The plea highlights several key procedural failures:
- No Prior Hearing: The authorities issued an expulsion directive without giving Khan a fair chance to present his side, violating the basic legal rule of natural justice.
- Bypassing Section 7D of the Citizenship Act: The law requires authorities to give a formal show-cause notice and a reasonable hearing before taking away lifelong residency rights from an OCI cardholder. The summary exit notice effectively bypassed this process.
- A Non-Speaking Order: A “non-speaking order” is a legal term for an official decision that fails to give proper reasons. The petition points out that the FRRO directive is vague, does not specify which rule Khan broke, and fails to state the exact timeline of the alleged wrongdoing.
- Gross Disproportionality: The petition states that directing a lifelong resident to leave the country over an untested, minor, and bailable complaint is completely disproportionate.
What The Law Says: Do Foreign Citizens Have Rights in India?
A central question in this case is how much protection non-citizens have under the Indian Constitution. While some fundamental rights—like the freedom of speech under Article 19—are reserved only for Indian citizens, other vital rights belong to every person standing on Indian soil.
Article 14 guarantees equality before the law to any person within India. Similarly, Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Khan’s petition argues that because Articles 14 and 21 protect non-citizens as well, the government cannot arbitrarily remove a lawful resident without following due process.
Furthermore, under Section 7D of the Citizenship Act, the central government has the power to cancel an OCI card only under specific conditions—such as fraud, disaffection toward the Constitution, or threats to national sovereignty. Crucially, the section itself requires that the cardholder must receive a reasonable opportunity to be heard before any cancellation order takes effect.
Relief Sought from the Bombay High Court
Through his legal team from MZM Legal—comprising advocates Zulfiquar Memon, Parvez Memon, and Chirag Naik—Khan has asked the High Court for multiple urgent remedies:
- An order quashing the FRRO directive dated October 14.
- An immediate interim stay on the operation of the expulsion notice.
- An order restraining authorities from taking coercive steps, such as deportation, issuing Lookout Circulars (LOCs), blacklisting, or cancelling his OCI status.
- Directions requiring the central government to produce all internal records and files that led to the sudden decision.
The matter is set to be mentioned before a division bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna.
Why This Case Matters
This legal challenge tests the limits of executive power over foreigners and long-term overseas citizens living in India. While the state has wide powers to regulate immigration and national borders, administrative actions in a constitutional democracy cannot be arbitrary, unreasoned, or driven purely by political pressure.
For the thousands of OCI cardholders who have built their entire lives, careers, and families in India, the High Court’s review will provide important guidance on whether summary expulsion orders can override statutory rights without a fair hearing.
Story reported by Barandbench. This article is BareLaw’s independent explanation and analysis.
📲 Get every BareLaw story on Telegram — simple legal news, 5 times a day, free: t.me/barelaw
