'Arbitrary, unreasonable’: Actor Imran Khan moves HC to challenge 'leave India' notice

The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer in Mumbai issued Khan a “leave India” notice on October 14. It ordered him to depart by October 28, giving him about two weeks. Khan says the notice relied on alleged violations of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, without identifying the specific provisions involved.

The order came within four days of a Mumbai protest against the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Khan was present at the protest, but he says he had no association with any organisation or institution that organised or joined it. His petition also says he has no criminal antecedents.

Khan challenged the notice before the Bombay high court. He argues that authorities gave him no reasons and no reasonable opportunity to respond. He is seeking urgent protection from enforcement and wants the notice quashed. The petition was expected to be mentioned the following Monday.

A “leave India” notice is an administrative order telling a foreign national to depart India within a specified period. It matters because enforcement can end a person’s stay without waiting for a criminal conviction. The article identifies the FRRO as an officer under the Bureau of Immigration and says it acted under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.

In Khan’s case, the notice set October 28 as the departure deadline. It referred generally to an alleged contravention of the Act, its rules, and orders, but did not cite the provisions involved. It also did not disclose the underlying order, supporting data, or any Security Report, according to his petition.

The article does not fully explain the FRRO’s statutory powers. It does show that the officer used immigration law to issue the notice and later sent a show-cause notice. Khan argues that this power must still be exercised with reasons and fair procedure.

The original notice was issued on October 14 and required Khan to leave India by October 28. The petition describes this as a two-week period. That short deadline is important because it left little time to challenge the order before it could be enforced.

Khan e-filed his petition before the Bombay high court on Saturday. On that same day, the FRRO sent him a fresh show-cause notice. It asked why action should not be taken against him under the law governing foreigners and Overseas Citizens of India.

The timing creates a clear procedural contrast. The first notice directly ordered departure, while the second invited a response. Khan is asking the high court to stay the original notice urgently. His petition was likely to be mentioned the following Monday, so the court could consider interim protection before the October 28 deadline.

If the notice is enforced, Khan could be compelled to leave India by the stated deadline. The article does not specify additional penalties or the destination. It does make clear that enforcement would directly affect his ability to remain in India and would activate the departure direction issued by the FRRO.

Khan’s immediate request is for the Bombay high court to stay the notice. He says enforcement would make a mockery of natural justice and constitutional protections. His petition argues that the order is punitive, disproportionate, and based on alleged legal violations that were never identified.

He also seeks to have the notice quashed. The court’s next procedural step was expected to be consideration of the petition when it was mentioned the following Monday. Separately, the FRRO’s new show-cause notice gives authorities a process through which Khan can respond before further action under the law governing foreigners and OCIs.

Khan’s OCI status matters because the petition says the FRRO did not properly consider it before ordering him to leave. The article also says he has been in India since he was two. Together, those facts frame the order as affecting someone with a long connection to the country, even though he is being dealt with under laws governing foreigners and OCIs.

OCI status is different from Indian citizenship. An OCI is generally a status granted to a foreign citizen of Indian origin, allowing specified immigration and residence benefits. It does not make that person an Indian citizen or give every right reserved for citizens. This distinction is established background, while the article specifically describes Khan as an OCI.

Khan argues that his status and the complete facts were not properly considered. The petition asks the court to prevent enforcement and quash what it calls a disproportionate action. The article does not provide further details about the basis or conditions of his OCI status.

A fairer process would begin with a clear notice explaining what conduct is alleged to violate which legal provision. Authorities could identify the relevant law, disclose the material relied on where legally possible, and explain why action is being considered. This matters because a person cannot meaningfully answer an accusation that remains unspecified.

The FRRO’s later show-cause notice illustrates one possible step. Khan could be given reasonable time to respond, present documents, and explain that he had no association with the protest organisers. Officials could then consider his lack of criminal antecedents, his OCI status, and his long residence before deciding what action is justified.

A final order should give reasons and address the response. If departure remains necessary, the decision could explain the legal basis and deadline. The article does not prescribe this exact procedure, but Khan’s petition says the original notice lacked reasons, hearing, and due process. The high court may assess those objections.

Article 14 protects equality before the law, while Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. The article states that these constitutional guarantees are available even to foreigners in India. They therefore matter when immigration authorities take action that can seriously affect a person’s ability to remain in the country.

Khan’s petition says the FRRO acted without giving reasons or a reasonable opportunity to be heard. It also says the order did not identify the alleged statutory violation, underlying data, or Security Report. He describes the action as arbitrary, punitive, and disproportionate, and argues that it singles him out as a scapegoat.

These guarantees do not necessarily prevent immigration action. They require the government to follow a fair, just, and reasonable procedure when restricting protected interests. The Bombay high court will consider Khan’s challenge and request for a stay. The article does not state the court’s eventual ruling, so the allegations remain claims in the petition.