Bollywood actor Imran Khan has been directed to leave India by October 28 after participating in a protest in Mumbai demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on October 10.
The notice issued by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) has raised legal questions about the rights of OCI cardholders, the government's powers over foreign nationals and the procedure required before a person can be ordered to leave the country.
Khan, nephew of actor Aamir Khan, was detained alongside other protesters at Mumbai's August Kranti Maidan and was subsequently released.
The demonstration, associated with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), focused on allegations of manipulation in electoral rolls. BJP leaders also called for action against Khan, questioning his participation in a political protest despite his status as a foreign national.
Advocates Ajinkya Udane and Rujju Thakkar have outlined several legal questions surrounding the notice, including whether participation in a protest constitutes a violation of immigration law and whether authorities must provide an opportunity to respond before ordering a foreign national to leave India.
DOES ATTENDING A PROTEST VIOLATE THE LAW?
Udane said there was no clear provision expressly prohibiting OCI cardholders from attending public protests. He argued that the central question was whether authorities could identify a specific provision, rule, order or condition that Khan had violated.
Thakkar shared a similar view, saying that simply attending a public protest as an OCI cardholder did not, in his understanding of the law, amount to breaking the law.
However, the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, gives the government broad powers to regulate foreign nationals in India. The precise legal basis cited in Khan's notice and the conditions allegedly violated are therefore important to assessing the validity of the action.
WHAT RIGHTS DOES AN OCI CARDHOLDER HAVE?
The legal position of an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder differs from that of an Indian citizen. Section 7B of the Citizenship Act, 1955, provides for specified rights and privileges for OCI cardholders, subject to the exclusions listed under Section 7B(2).
The Ministry of External Affairs clarifies that OCI status should not be construed as dual citizenship and does not confer political rights. The Ministry of Home Affairs also describes OCI cardholders as foreign nationals rather than citizens of India.
However, the extent to which OCI cardholders can invoke constitutional protections remains a significant legal question. While certain rights are reserved for Indian citizens, constitutional guarantees such as equality before the law and protection of life and personal liberty extend to all persons within India.
The question in Khan's case is whether participation in a peaceful protest can, by itself, constitute grounds for directing an OCI cardholder to leave India, and what procedural safeguards must be followed before such an order is issued.
CAN AUTHORITIES ORDER A FOREIGN NATIONAL TO LEAVE WITHOUT HEARING?
Udane said the government's powers over foreign nationals were substantial but not unlimited. He referred to Section 29 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, which provides for the removal of foreigners in specified circumstances, including violations of the Act, its rules or orders, and cases involving an adverse security report.
He argued that a political complaint alone should not be treated as proof of a statutory violation. He also cited Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and protection of life and personal liberty to all persons, including foreign nationals.
Thakkar referred to the Calcutta High Court's judgment in Kamil Siedczynski vs Union of India, saying the court had held that a hearing should be provided before an expulsion order is issued.
The FRRO's powers under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, are central to the dispute. The order issued to Khan invokes Section 7(2)(c), read with Section 29 of the Act.
Section 7 provides the statutory framework for regulating the entry, departure and continued presence of foreign nationals in India. Section 7(2)(c) is cited in Khan's notice as part of the authority for directing him to leave the country.
Section 29 provides for the removal of a foreign national for contravening provisions of the Act, its rules or orders, or on the basis of an adverse security report. It also authorises government officers to exercise reasonable powers necessary to enforce a removal direction.
The legal question, therefore, is not merely whether the FRRO has powers over foreign nationals. It is whether the circumstances of Khan's case fall within the grounds permitted by law and whether the order complies with the applicable procedural requirements.
The exact grounds relied upon by the authorities, including whether they cite a specific statutory violation or an adverse security report, will be important in assessing the notice. Participation in a protest should not be described as an established violation unless the authorities identify the relevant legal provision and the basis for invoking it.
CAN OCI SAFEGUARDS BE BYPASSED?
Another question concerns whether authorities can order an OCI cardholder to leave India under foreigner laws without first cancelling their OCI registration under Section 7D of the Citizenship Act.
Udane said the government could argue that cancellation of OCI registration and removal from India were separate legal actions. However, he said using foreigner laws to achieve an outcome similar to OCI cancellation could raise questions about whether the safeguards under Section 7D were being bypassed.
Thakkar cited the Delhi High Court's March 28, 2025, judgment in Ashok Swain vs Union of India, saying it highlighted the need to interpret the Citizenship Act and the Foreigners Act harmoniously. He also referred to the John Robert Roughten Hills case in support of the argument that deportation of an OCI cardholder without following the applicable procedure could be arbitrary.
CAN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT STAY THE NOTICE?
Both advocates said Khan could seek interim protection from the Bombay High Court, although neither considered a stay guaranteed.
Udane said the short deadline, questions over the alleged violation and concerns about procedural fairness could support a plea for temporary protection. However, he noted that foreign nationals do not have an absolute right to remain in India and that the government has considerable authority over their entry and stay.
Thakkar said the court could consider granting a stay, depending on the facts of the case and the Bureau of Immigration's report.
WILL FILING A PETITION ALLOW KHAN TO STAY?
Both advocates agreed that filing a writ petition would not automatically suspend the FRRO notice or allow Khan to remain in India beyond October 28.
Unless the authorities withdraw or modify the notice, or the High Court grants interim protection, the direction would continue to operate. Khan's immediate legal objective would therefore be to seek an urgent hearing and obtain a specific court order before the deadline.
The legal challenge is expected to focus on the grounds for the notice, the powers exercised by the authorities and whether the required procedural safeguards were followed.
- Ends