The Bombay High Court has fixed November 2 for the hearing of a petition filed by actor Imran Khan Pal, who is challenging a government notice directing him to leave India. The notice, issued by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), had initially ordered the actor to depart the country by October 28. Following an assurance from Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, the court has extended this deadline until the upcoming hearing date.
The legal challenge arises from an October 14 notice served to the actor, which was prompted by an FIR registered against him. Authorities initiated the action after Khan allegedly participated in a protest in Mumbai on October 10. The demonstration was reportedly held in support of the Cockroach Janata Party’s (CJP) agitation against the Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar, in Delhi.
During the proceedings, a procedural debate occurred regarding the court's jurisdiction to hear the matter. Advocate Sunil Kumar, intervening in the case, argued that the FRRO notice falls under criminal jurisdiction, suggesting that the current bench led by Chief Justice Mahesh C. Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna was not the appropriate forum for this civil petition. In response, Khan’s senior counsel, V.R. Dhond, maintained that the Chief Justice, acting as the master of the roster, holds the authority to hear the case.
The bench subsequently opted to hear the Centre’s position on the matter. While the proceedings were initially set aside to allow Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to appear via video conference from New Delhi, the court ultimately adjourned the hearing to November 2 after the Additional Solicitor General requested more time.
In his petition, the 44-year-old actor, who is a United States citizen and an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder, described the government's directive as arbitrary. He asserted that the action violates his constitutional rights to equality, life, and liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Khan emphasized that he has lived in India since he was two years old, is married in the country, and has built his livelihood as an actor here.
The plea further argues that the FRRO notice lacks due process, claiming that no show-cause notice was provided to allow him an opportunity to respond. Khan pointed out that the FIR filed against him relates to bailable offences with no punishment exceeding two years, and noted that no chargesheet has been filed in the case. He contended that the authorities should not move for expulsion while the criminal justice process remains ongoing.
Additionally, the actor alleged that the notice was a result of a political vendetta triggered by a complaint from a political functionary. He argued that the statutory power to remove an individual should be used to safeguard national security rather than to penalize a public figure for their presence at a protest site. The court is now expected to weigh these arguments, along with the government's response, when the matter resumes next month.
Comments