Bombay High Court: Imran Khan Challenges FRRO 'Leave India' Notice

• Actor Imran Khan has filed a plea in the Bombay High Court challenging a 'Leave India' directive issued by the FRRO on October 14.
• Khan, an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI), contends the FRRO order bypassed his statutory rights and was issued without a prior hearing.
• His counsel argued the notice was prompted by Khan's attempt to attend a protest, where he was stopped and returned.
• The Bombay High Court has scheduled the hearing for October 26, allowing the FRRO time to prepare its response.
• The court also instructed Khan's lawyers to include the State of Maharashtra as a party to ascertain any potential criminal antecedents.

Khan's petition specifically argues that the executive authorities failed to provide him with any prior hearing, thereby bypassing his statutory rights as an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) and acting with undue haste in issuing the directive for him to exit the country.

Actor Imran Khan has initiated legal proceedings in the Bombay High Court, challenging a directive issued by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO). The FRRO's order, dated October 14, instructed Khan to leave India. The Bombay High Court is scheduled to hear this matter on October 26, in a case officially titled *Imran Khan Pal v. Union of India & Ors*.

The plea was brought before a division bench consisting of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna on a Monday. Senior advocate Venkatesh Dhond, representing Khan, informed the court that the FRRO notice was served following Khan's attempt to attend a protest, an endeavor from which he was reportedly turned back midway. Dhond also confirmed that the Central government had received a copy of the petition.

At the core of Imran Khan's petition is the contention that the executive authorities acted without adhering to proper legal procedures. Khan, who holds Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) status, argues that the FRRO's 'Leave India' direction was issued without providing him any prior hearing, which he asserts is a fundamental procedural right. He further claims that this action bypassed his statutory rights as an OCI holder, suggesting a disregard for established legal protections.

Khan's petition characterizes the FRRO's actions as hasty. He explicitly alleges that the directive for him to exit the country was a direct response to his attempt to participate in the aforementioned protest, implying that the order was not based on due process but rather on a reaction to his activities. This challenge to the FRRO's authority underscores concerns about the procedural fairness afforded to Overseas Citizens of India facing such directives.

During the initial mention of the plea, Khan's counsel requested an expedited hearing on October 21. However, the Bombay High Court opted to schedule the hearing for October 26. This decision was made to allow the FRRO sufficient time to obtain instructions and prepare its response to the petition filed by Imran Khan, ensuring both parties have adequate opportunity to present their cases.

Furthermore, the court issued a significant directive to Khan's legal team, instructing them to include the State of Maharashtra as a party to the case. The court's explicit reason for this inclusion was to ascertain whether Khan has any criminal antecedents. The bench remarked, "Are there any criminal antecedents? Join State as party, so that in case. This is a local matter. So make State of Maharashtra a party," indicating the court's interest in a comprehensive review of the circumstances surrounding the 'Leave India' direction and the broader context of the Bombay High Court OCI challenge.

Lawyers advising Overseas Citizens of India (OCIs) or handling immigration matters should monitor this case for potential precedents regarding the procedural requirements and due process rights for OCIs facing 'Leave India' directives, particularly concerning the necessity of a prior hearing before such orders are issued by the FRRO.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlet.