'Cannot behave like an Indian': HC raps Imran Khan; asks govt to be 'magnanimous'

Khan’s OCI status was not reported as cancelled. Instead, the Foreigner Registration Regional Officer issued a Leave India notice giving him two weeks to depart. The notice followed an FIR linked to his alleged presence at an October 10 protest in Mumbai.

The high court continued interim relief, so Khan was temporarily protected from the notice while the case proceeded. The court sought a categorical undertaking that he had no association with the protest and would not participate in similar protests as an OCI card holder. It also required an unconditional apology.

The Centre opposed protection and said Khan had instigated people on social media. The court sought the Centre’s reply before deciding the challenge. The immediate reality is therefore temporary protection, not a final ruling on his right to remain or any cancellation of his OCI status.

An Overseas Citizen of India card is a status for a foreign citizen with an eligible Indian connection. It can support residence and other permitted activities in India, but it is not Indian nationality or dual citizenship. The article identifies Khan as both a US citizen and an OCI card holder.

That distinction mattered because the judges repeatedly said OCI holders are not Indian citizens. They told Khan he could not behave like, or be placed on par with, Indian citizens. The Centre also argued that Article 19 does not apply to OCI holders and that a visa does not guarantee unrestricted entry or residence.

The case shows that an OCI holder’s presence in India can remain subject to immigration decisions. Khan may rely on Article 21 protections, his lawyer argued, but the court linked protest participation to rights it said are unavailable to OCI card holders. The final legal position remained undecided.

Khan’s long history in India formed a central part of his lawyer’s argument. Senior counsel VR Dhond said Khan had been in the country since he was two years old and had lived there for the last 42 years. This personal history was offered as a reason he should be heard before removal.

Dhond said Khan studied and worked in India, married there, and had a child there. Khan also makes films in India and is a celebrity with broad recognition. The judges acknowledged that he had been in India since childhood and that the country had not previously raised such an issue against him.

Those connections did not change the court’s stated distinction between an OCI holder and an Indian citizen. The judges suggested he apply for Indian citizenship. For now, his residence, family, work, and public profile support his case for consideration, but they do not automatically establish citizenship rights.

The FIR exposed Khan to investigation and possible criminal proceedings over alleged unlawful assembly and disobedience of orders connected with the protest. His lawyer stressed that all the offences mentioned were bailable. Dhond also said Khan had neither been summoned nor called for a probe.

Separately, the FRRO issued a Leave India notice giving Khan two weeks to depart. The Centre argued that it could remove a foreigner and needed no foundational basis to expel one. It also said Khan’s presence at the protest was not merely curious and that he had instigated people on social media.

The high court temporarily continued protection against the notice and sought the Centre’s response. It has not finally decided whether the notice was arbitrary or unlawful. Khan therefore faced immigration removal and an FIR, while the criminal and constitutional issues remained pending before the court.

The court’s reasoning rested on citizenship status. The Chief Justice said OCI holders are not Indian citizens and told Khan he could not behave like one. Justice Sethna added that the right to protest was not available to him as an OCI holder. These were oral remarks during an interim hearing, not a final judgment.

The dispute focused on the protest against the Special Intensive Revision of voter rolls and the Chief Election Commissioner. The judges asked why Khan attended and demanded a categorical statement that he had no association with the organisers. His lawyer said Khan was curious and had no affiliation with them.

The Centre argued that Article 19 did not apply to OCI holders. Dhond avoided deciding the broader constitutional issue and relied on Article 21, saying life and liberty protections apply to non-citizens and natural justice should apply. The court sought the Centre’s reply before deciding the petition.

The Centre’s Additional Solicitor General said the government had power to remove a foreigner from India. He argued that no foundational basis was required to expel one and that a visa did not guarantee unrestricted entry. On that view, the Leave India decision was within the Centre’s discretion.

The government relied on Khan’s US citizenship, OCI status, alleged protest involvement, and social-media activity. It said there was no reason to protect him. Khan challenged the notice as arbitrary and as violating his right to life, while his lawyer stressed natural justice under Article 21.

The high court did not immediately accept either side’s complete position. It continued interim relief, required Khan’s undertaking and apology, sought the Centre’s reply, and allowed a rejoinder. It can therefore review the decision’s legality and fairness, even though the article does not report a final ruling on the Centre’s removal power.

Article 21 concerns life and personal liberty. Dhond argued that this protection extends to non-citizens, including Khan, and that principles of natural justice should apply. His argument challenged the removal process without claiming that Khan had the same constitutional political rights as an Indian citizen.

Article 19 was discussed as the source of political freedoms, especially protest-related rights. The Centre argued that Article 19 does not apply to OCI card holders. Justice Sethna said the right to protest was not available to Khan as an OCI, while the Chief Justice stressed that OCI holders are not citizens.

The distinction shaped the interim hearing. Khan could ask the court to protect his liberty and review the notice, but the judges questioned his participation in a protest about voter-roll revision. The article records oral observations and arguments, not a final ruling defining every Article 21 or Article 19 right.