Actor Imran Khan to move HC against notice asking him to leave country for taking part in protest

Mumbai Police issued Imran Khan, a U.S. citizen and OCI cardholder, a notice directing him to leave India on or before October 28. Authorities said he allegedly violated rules by participating in a political demonstration. The order matters because it threatens his continued stay in India, even though his draft petition calls the directive drastic.

The action followed Khan’s detention during an October 10 protest at Mumbai’s August Kranti Maidan. The gathering supported a Cockroach Janta Party demonstration demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation over the SIR issue. Police invoked Sections 7(2)(C) and 29 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act.

Section 7(2)(C) allows restrictions on a foreigner’s presence in India. Section 29 permits removal for violating the Act, rules, or orders, or after an adverse security report. If Khan stays past the deadline, deportation procedures may begin. He plans to challenge the notice in the Bombay High Court.

An Overseas Citizen of India card is an immigration status for eligible people of Indian origin who hold foreign citizenship. It can provide long-term entry and residence-related benefits in India, but it does not make the holder an Indian citizen. The distinction matters because an OCI cardholder remains a foreign national under Indian immigration law.

The article identifies Imran Khan as a U.S. citizen and an OCI cardholder. That status is central to the police action. Authorities treated him under provisions governing foreign nationals after he joined a protest in Mumbai. Khan’s draft petition argues that current law and statutory rules do not prohibit an OCI cardholder from joining a peaceful protest.

Indian citizenship and OCI status are therefore different legal categories. A citizen belongs to India’s citizenship system, while an OCI cardholder remains connected to India through a special immigration arrangement. The article does not settle whether Khan’s protest violated the law. That question is expected to be examined by the Bombay High Court.

The Mumbai protest involved roughly 600 detained protesters, according to the article’s headline and related coverage. The number shows that the police action extended well beyond Imran Khan, who was one of the people briefly detained. The gathering was linked to a broader political campaign against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The protest took place at August Kranti Maidan in Mumbai on October 10. Protesters gathered there in solidarity with a demonstration by the Cockroach Janta Party in Delhi. They demanded Kumar’s resignation over the SIR issue, described in the article as involving alleged irregularities in electoral rolls. Tushar Gandhi and Imran Khan were among those detained.

The detention figure provides the immediate setting for Khan’s later immigration notice. Police subsequently directed him to leave India by October 28, citing alleged rule violations and statutory powers over foreign nationals. The article does not state that every detained protester received a departure order. It specifically focuses on the notice issued to Khan and his planned court challenge.

The two provisions give the government significant control over a foreign national’s presence in India. Section 7(2)(C) allows officials to prohibit, regulate, or restrict a foreigner’s presence or continued presence. The article specifically says it can support an order that a person shall not remain in India or a specified area.

Section 29 adds an enforcement and removal power. It permits the government to direct a foreign national’s removal for contravening the Act, its rules, or an order made under them. It may also apply following an adverse security report. The section gives law enforcement officers reasonable powers needed to carry out that direction.

These provisions formed the stated legal basis for Khan’s departure notice. Police said they invoked both sections after his detention at the anti-CEC protest. Their use does not by itself resolve whether the order was lawful in Khan’s circumstances. His planned Bombay High Court petition will challenge the directive, including his argument that OCI rules do not bar peaceful protest.

The immediate consequence of missing the October 28 deadline could be deportation proceedings. The notice directs Imran Khan to leave India on or before that date. It warns that failure to do so may trigger action under Section 29 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act.

The article explains that Section 29 allows the government to direct a foreign national’s removal for violating the Act, its rules, or related orders. It also allows removal after an adverse security report. Law enforcement officers receive reasonable powers needed to enforce the directive. In Khan’s case, police said the provision supported the departure order.

Deportation is described as a possible next step, not an action already completed. Khan plans to approach the Bombay High Court before the deadline, through advocate Zulfiquar Memon. The court could consider his challenge before enforcement advances. His draft petition calls the leave-India directive drastic and disputes the legal basis for penalising his participation in a peaceful protest.

Imran Khan is planning to approach the Bombay High Court because Mumbai Police ordered him to leave India after his participation in a political demonstration. His draft petition calls the directive drastic. It argues that no provision under current law or statutory rules prohibits an OCI cardholder from taking part in a peaceful protest.

The petition is expected to be filed through advocate Zulfiquar Memon on October 16 or October 19, 2026. After filing, it may be mentioned for an urgent hearing before a division Bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna. The case concerns both Khan’s OCI status and the immigration provisions cited by police.

A High Court can generally examine whether officials acted within their legal powers, interpreted the relevant provisions correctly, and followed fair procedure. It may also assess whether the order has a lawful and rational connection to the alleged violation. The article does not predict the result. The court’s review could determine whether the departure notice stands, changes, or is set aside.

Countries commonly balance public participation against immigration control by treating these as related but distinct questions. A foreign national may be allowed to express views or join public activity under applicable law, while the government retains authority to regulate entry, residence, and removal. The key issue is whether restrictions have a clear legal basis and are fairly applied.

The article presents both sides through Khan’s case. He joined an October 10 protest at August Kranti Maidan and says no current rule prohibits an OCI cardholder from participating peacefully. Police relied on Sections 7(2)(C) and 29, which address restrictions on a foreigner’s presence and removal for legal or rule violations.

A court can test that balance by examining the wording of the law, the facts relied upon, and the procedure used. It can ask whether the order exceeded statutory powers or treated lawful conduct as a violation. The Bombay High Court’s review may clarify how these immigration provisions apply to OCI cardholders who participate in political demonstrations.