Imran Khan Gets Interim Relief From Bombay High Court, Can Stay In India Till November 2

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday deferred actor Imran Khan Pal’s challenge to a Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) notice directing him to leave India. The court extended the deadline under the notice until November 2, when the matter will be heard again. The development came after Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh assured the bench that the deadline would remain extended until the next hearing. Chief Justice Mahesh C Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna heard the case. Pal, who has lived in India since childhood, moved the court after being directed to leave the country by October 28.

Jurisdiction Objection Delays Hearing

The hearing also saw an objection over whether the current bench could hear the petition. Advocate Sunil Kumar, represented by advocate Subhash Jha, intervened and argued that the FRRO notice concerned criminal jurisdiction. He questioned whether Pal’s civil petition could be taken up by the bench under its existing assignment.

Senior advocate V R Dhond, appearing for Pal, challenged the intervenor’s locus to raise the issue. Dhond argued that the Chief Justice, being the master of the roster, had the authority to hear the petition.

The bench said it wanted to hear the Centre’s response to the objection. The matter was subsequently kept back to allow Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to appear virtually from New Delhi. However, ASG Anil Singh later sought an adjournment to facilitate the Solicitor General’s appearance, following which the court listed the case for November 2.

ALSO READ | Bombay HC To Hear Imran Khan’s Plea Against ‘Leave India’ Notice On Oct 27

 Why Imran Khan Pal Challenged FRRO Notice

Pal, aged around 44, approached the Bombay High Court through advocates Zulfiqar Memon and Parvez Memon against the October 14 FRRO notice. The notice directed him to leave India by October 28.

The action followed an FIR registered against him in connection with his alleged participation in a Mumbai protest on October 10. The protest was held in support of the Cockroach Janata Party’s (CJP) agitation against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in Delhi. Advocate Kunal Vajani had also appeared for Pal through video conference during an earlier hearing.

In his petition, Pal described the Centre’s action as arbitrary and alleged that it infringed his rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. He maintained that these protections apply to foreigners as well. Pal told the court that he had been living in India since he was two years old, had no criminal antecedents, was married in India and had a child. He also stated that his livelihood as an actor was based in India.

The petition further stated that Pal holds an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card under Section 7A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. He argued that his status was different from that of a foreign national staying in India on a time-bound visa. “OCI registration confers a lifelong, multiple-entry right of entry into and residence in India,” the petition stated.

ALSO READ | Imran Khan vs Union Of India: What To Expect At October 26 Bombay HC Hearing

Pal argued that the registration conditions applicable to OCI cardholders did not prevent him from being present at a public place. He also contended that the FRRO could not order his removal merely because an FIR had been registered against him while the investigation was still pending.

According to the petition, the alleged offences were bailable and carried a maximum punishment of two years. Pal pointed out that no chargesheet had been filed, no court had taken cognisance, and no charges had been framed against him.

He further argued that the authorities had imposed the most serious consequence, expulsion from India, based only on allegations. The petition cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Maneka Gandhi passport case to argue that any procedure affecting Article 21 rights must be fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary.

Pal also claimed that he was not given a show-cause notice or an opportunity to respond before the FRRO issued the direction. He alleged that the action followed a complaint by a political functionary who had sought his deportation.

The petition argued that statutory powers could not be exercised at the behest of a third party or for a purpose outside the law. Pal also maintained that Section 29 was intended to protect national sovereignty and security and could not be used against a public figure merely over his alleged presence near a protest.

He further claimed that his removal, based on what he described as a false FIR, could affect confidence in the OCI framework among the Indian diaspora in the United States. Pal also pointed to his US citizenship.

“Adherence to the rule of law in matters of residence and immigration is integral to India's standing among nations and cannot be sacrificed at the altar of personal vendetta,” the petition stated.

The Bombay High Court will now hear the matter on November 2, with the Centre expected to respond to the jurisdictional objection.