Mumbai: Bombay High Court on Tuesday posted to Nov 2 the hearing on actor Imran Khan Pal’s challenge to a notice directing him to leave India and till then kept the notice in abeyance. The Oct 28 deadline under the Oct 14 notice issued by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, was extended till the next hearing after Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh appearing for the Centre sought a short adjournment.Khan, born in the US, has been in India for almost 42 years since the age of two years. He holds an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) status under the Citizenship Act, 1955.The HC bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna recorded in the brief order that senior counsel V R Dhond appearing for the actor had “fairly” not opposed such a request for adjournment.Khan’s plea says power to remove a person under Section 29 of the Foreigners Act was intended to safeguard national sovereignty and security, and could not be used to punish a public figure merely for being present near a protest site or expressing concern over restrictions on the movement of people in the city. His expulsion could undermine confidence of the US-based Indian diaspora in the OCI regime and raise concerns for the US, whose citizen he is.On Tuesday, lawyer Sunil Kumar, represented by advocate Subhash Jha, intervened in the matter, contending that the FRRO notice falls under criminal jurisdiction and that Khan’s civil petition could thus not be heard. Khan’s senior counsel, V R Dhond, questioned the intervener’s locus to raise the objection.The matter was kept back for Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to appear online for the FRRO, a central govt authority, from New Delhi. However, ASG Anil Singh later sought an adjournment to enable the solicitor general to appear, following which the court posted the matter to Nov 2.The notice followed an FIR registered against him for allegedly participating in a protest in Mumbai on Oct 10 in support of the Cockroach Janata Party’s (CJP) agitation against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in Delhi. Khan’s plea said he was merely “curious” when he was passing by and saw the crowd and had left immediately when the police asked him to.Khan (around 44), also represented by lawyers Zulfiquar Memon, Parvez Memon and Kunal Vajani, contended that the notice was arbitrary, disproportionate and issued without hearing him, thus flouting his fundamental rights to equality and life under Articles 14 and 21, which apply to non-Indian citizens as well.Arguing that the notice imposed the ultimate consequence on the basis of a mere allegation, the petition said the authorities could not proceed with his expulsion without allowing the criminal justice process to take its course.
