Big relief for actor Imran Khan: Bombay HC keeps in abeyance 'leave India' notice

The B​ombay High Court will hear the petition on October 26, as Imran Khan faces a departure deadlineMUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Tuesday posted to November 2 the hearing on actor Imran Khan Pal’s challenge to a notice directing him to leave India. The deadline under the notice issued by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) has been extended till the next hearing on the assurance of Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh.Advocate Sunil Kumar, represented by advocate Subhash Jha, intervened in the matter, contending that the FRRO notice falls under criminal jurisdiction and that Khan’s civil petition could not be heard by the bench of Chief Justice Mahesh C Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna under its existing assignment. Khan’s senior counsel, V R Dhond, questioned the intervenor’s locus to raise the objection, arguing that the chief justice, as master of the roster, had the jurisdiction to hear the matter. Advocate Kunal Vajani also appeared to the actor online on VC.The bench said it wanted to hear the Centre’s response to the objection. The matter was kept back for Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to appear online from New Delhi. However, ASG Anil Singh later sought an adjournment to enable the solicitor general to appear, following which the court posted the matter to November 2.Khan, around 44, approached the high court through lawyers Zulfiquar Memon and Parvez Memon to challenge an October 14 notice directing him to leave India by October 28. The notice followed an FIR registered against him for allegedly participating in a protest in Mumbai on October 10 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 Khan via video conference on Monday.‘Living in India since age two’In his petition, Khan termed the Centre’s action arbitrary and alleged that it violated his constitutional rights to equality, life and liberty under Articles 14 and 21. He argued that these protections extend to foreigners as well.Khan said he had lived in India since he was two years old, had no criminal antecedents, was married in India and had a child. He also earns his livelihood as an actor in the country, the petition stated.He said he was registered as an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder under Section 7A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and was not an ordinary foreigner holding a time-bound visa.“OCI registration confers a lifelong, multiple-entry right of entry into and residence in India,” the petition stated, adding that the statutory restrictions applicable to OCI cardholders did not prohibit his presence at a public place.‘No opportunity to be heard’The petition argued that the FRRO could not order his expulsion merely because an FIR had been registered, particularly when the case was still under investigation.Khan submitted that the offences alleged in the FIR were bailable and carried no punishment exceeding two years in jail. No chargesheet had been filed, no court had taken cognisance of the case and no charges had been framed, he said.Arguing that the notice imposed the ultimate consequence on the basis of a mere allegation, the petition said the authorities could not proceed with his expulsion without allowing the criminal justice process to take its course.Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in the Maneka Gandhi passport case, Khan argued that the procedure under Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable, and not arbitrary or oppressive.He contended that the authorities should have issued a show-cause notice explaining the grounds for the proposed action and given him an effective opportunity to respond before passing the order. No such notice was issued, the petition said.Alleged political vendettaKhan also claimed that the notice followed a complaint by a political functionary who had demanded his deportation. He argued that statutory powers exercised at the behest of a third party, or for a purpose other than that intended by law, would amount to an arbitrary exercise of power and malice in law.The petition contended that the power to remove a person under Section 29 was intended to safeguard national sovereignty and security, and could not be used to punish a public figure merely for being present near a protest site or expressing concern over restrictions on the movement of people in the city.Khan further argued that his expulsion without reasons or a hearing, based on what he described as a false FIR, would have implications beyond his individual case. He said it could undermine the confidence of the Indian diaspora in the US in the OCI regime and raise concerns for the US, whose citizen he is.“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.