Imran Khan moves Bombay High Court against FRRO's ‘Leave India’ notice; flags procedural lapses

Bollywood actor Imran Khan has approached the Bombay High Court challenging the notice issued by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) which directs him to leave the country by October 28 for allegedly violating the Foreigners Act. [Imran Khan Pal v. Union of India & Ors]  

In his petition, Khan has contended that executive authorities gave him no prior hearing, bypassed his statutory rights as an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI), and acted in hasty response to political social media campaigns.

The American national was directed by FRRO to leave the country by October 28.

This was after he was briefly detained by the police after taking part in demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The directive was issued shortly after Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Kirit Somaiya filed an FIR at the Gamdevi police station alleging public-order infractions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

On October 17, FRRO issued a show cause notice asking Khan why his OCI registration should not be cancelled under Section 7D of the Citizenship Act.

The plea is likely to be mentioned before a division bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna on October 19.

In the petition filed on October 17, Khan has challenged the FRRO order issued under Section 7(2)(c) read with Section 29 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act (IFA), 2025. 

According to the plea, Khan has lived in India for more than four decades with an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) registration since 2006.

The plea also highlights the unusual haste in issuing the expulsion directive.

Khan has alleged that authorities acted under pressure from public social media campaigns by political functionaries rather than an independent application of mind.

"Directing a lifelong resident to leave India on account of a brief and unjust detention, from which he was released the same evening, is wholly disproportionate," the plea states.

Khan has also contended that the notice fails to identify the specific provision breached, the offending act or the timeline of the alleged contravention.

"An untested allegation of minor, bailable offences cannot form the basis for removing a person from the country he has called home for virtually his entire life," the plea states.

The plea maintains that protections under Articles 14 and 21 extend to every individual within Indian territory which bars unilateral executive action without due process.

The plea contends that the FRRO circumvented Section 7D of the Citizenship Act which mandates a formal show-cause notice and a reasonable opportunity of being heard before revoking an OCI cardholder's lifelong residency status.

The notice is non-speaking and generic, failing to disclose what specific conduct or provision of the IFA Khan allegedly contravened, while also ignoring his OCI credentials.

Khan has sought an order to quash the October 14 directive alongside an interim stay on its operation. 

He has also urged the court to restrain coercive actions such as deportation, lookout notices, blacklisting or interference with his OCI status and sought production of all internal records underlying the decision.

Khan is being represented by advocates Zulfiquar Memon, Parvez Memon and Chirag Naik from MZM Legal.