Bombay HC Extends Stay On Imran Khan’s ‘Leave India Notice’, Next Hearing On Dec 7

Bollywood actor Imran Khan has received relief from the Bombay High Court in the case concerning a Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) notice asking him to leave India. A bench headed by Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi extended the stay on the ‘Leave India Notice’ (LIN), which had directed the actor to leave the country by October 28.

However, the court clarified that Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholders cannot enjoy the same rights as Indian citizens. It also directed Khan to file his response to the FRRO notice, submit an undertaking regarding his participation in a protest and tender an unconditional apology.

The Mumbai FRRO had issued the notice asking Khan to leave India by October 28. The actor challenged it before the Bombay High Court. During the previous hearing, the FRRO had assured the court that no action would be taken against him until November 2. The matter was heard again on Monday.

Court Questions Imran Khan’s Participation In SIR Protest

During the hearing, the Chief Justice asked Khan why he had participated in a protest against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. The court observed that he had no connection with the SIR and said that, as an OCI cardholder, he could not participate in protests in the same manner as Indian citizens.

The court said Khan would have to clearly state that he had no association with the organisers or participants of the protest.

Appearing for Khan, advocate Venkatesh Dhond told the bench that his client had no links with the protest organisers or protesters. He submitted that Khan had spent most of his life in India and was born in the country, although he is an American citizen. Dhond also said that Khan would neither participate in any protest nor encourage anyone else to do so.

The Chief Justice said Khan would also have to tender an unconditional apology. The court observed that, as a celebrity with millions of followers, his statements could influence people. It said he should ensure that he did not encourage anyone to take part in such activities.

The court also remarked that Khan had worked in India and built his identity here, adding that such conduct was not expected from him.

Centre Opposes Imran Khan’s Plea

Opposing the petition, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing for the Centre, alleged that Khan had attempted to provoke people through certain social media posts and interviews.

Singh argued that OCI cardholders do not have an unlimited right to stay in India and are not entitled to the same fundamental rights as Indian citizens. He also submitted that the government has extensive powers to take action in matters involving foreign nationals.

The Chief Justice agreed that OCI cardholders cannot claim rights equal to those of Indian citizens. However, the court said it would not be appropriate to pass an order against someone who had been living in India for a long time without first hearing their side.

The bench said Khan should be given an opportunity to respond to the FRRO notice.

The Chief Justice also asked what would happen if the Maharashtra Police investigation did not find any evidence against Khan. Referring to the principle of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’, the court observed that India had embraced Khan for years and given him the opportunity to work and establish his identity in the country. It said the government should, therefore, show a broad-minded approach.

FRRO Asked To Consider Khan’s Response

In its order, the court reiterated that OCI cardholders are not on a par with Indian citizens and cannot claim the right to participate in or incite such protests while staying in India.

At the same time, it allowed Khan to submit his response to the FRRO notice. The bench directed him to file his reply, an undertaking and an unconditional apology.

The FRRO has been asked to consider his response and hear his side before taking a decision. The stay on the Leave India Notice will remain in force in the meantime.

The next hearing in the matter is scheduled for December 7.