The Bombay High Court paused an FRRO notice directing actor Imran Khan to leave India by October 28, keeping the order in abeyance until November 2. A division bench headed by Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and sitting with Justice Advait Sethna made the order, dated October 27, 2026.
As of October 2026, the next hearing is set for November 2 at 3:00 p.m. The court acted after government counsel sought more time and gave an oral assurance that no coercive steps would be taken against Khan in the meantime.
The order temporarily permits Khan to remain in India beyond the deadline in the departure direction. It does not decide whether that direction was lawful.
A separate proceeding over his Overseas Citizen of India registration remains on a different track. Khan has not challenged that show-cause notice in this petition.
The October 14 departure order is paused, but the OCI notice is separate
The Foreigners Regional Registration Office in Mumbai issued the Leave India Notice on October 14, 2026. It directed Khan to leave by October 28. The court put that order on hold until the next hearing.
The interim protection covers coercive action before that date, including deportation, a Look Out Circular, blacklisting or action against his OCI status. The order's immediate effect is to hold the departure direction, not to resolve the underlying dispute.
Khan filed his writ petition on October 17, seeking to quash the departure order and interim protection from deportation, lookout notices and interference with his OCI status. The petition number is 36271 of 2026.
The agency had issued a separate show-cause notice on October 17 under Section 7D(e) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. It said Khan's OCI registration could be liable for cancellation, based on his explanation and supporting material. That notice is not challenged in the pending petition.
Khan argues the department ordered him out without a hearing
Khan's petition describes the departure notice as “unconstitutional” and “non-bonafide,” alleging “high-handed and grossly disproportionate abuse of power.” It says the agency acted hastily, without first hearing him, and under pressure from political social media campaigns rather than independent reasoning.
His petition argues that Section 7D of the Citizenship Act requires a formal show-cause notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond before OCI residency can be revoked. It calls the departure direction a final order issued without an inquiry or a chance to answer. The 14 days allowed to leave, it says, “are not a substitute for a hearing.”
The filing also says the notice identified Khan only as a United States national and did not mention his OCI status under the Citizenship Act, 1955. It describes that status as carrying a lifelong right of residence in India and argues the omission showed “non-application of mind.”
Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond appeared for Khan, alongside advocates Zulfiquar Memon, Parvez Memon and Chirag Naik of MZM Legal. When government counsel sought an adjournment, Dhond said his client faced a departure deadline the following day.
“(But) I have to leave tomorrow (according to the FRRO directive)”
The petition disputes the premise that the protest breached an OCI condition. It says the gathering restriction was a local police order, not an order under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, and argues the site was not a protected or prohibited place notified by the central government under that law.
Khan says he did not try to enter the barricaded area and was returning to his car when police asked him to leave. The petition says police apprehended him after media personnel surrounded him and asked for his remarks. It argues that protesting is not prohibited for OCI holders and that an under-investigation FIR cannot justify expulsion. It also seeks internal records related to the decision, and says implementing the notice would cause “irreversible harm.”
The October protest and Somaiya's complaints preceded the departure direction
Mumbai Police briefly detained Khan on October 10, 2026, at a protest near August Kranti Maidan. Protesters called for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar to resign. The Cockroach Janta Party, a GenZ-led movement seeking electoral reforms, called the gathering, which was also linked to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
Police said Khan had participated despite not being an Indian citizen and that the agency served him a notice for violating laws by protesting. Khan told reporters he was there as a city resident to question restrictions on movement and speech. He was released the same evening.
Kirit Somaiya, a BJP leader and former MP, accused Khan of being “involved in a conspiracy to spread anarchy in India.” He contacted senior Mumbai Police officials on October 10. On October 12, he sent written complaints to the police commissioner and joint commissioner and lodged another at Gamdevi Police Station, where an FIR was registered.
Somaiya wrote to Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan on October 13, urging the Home Ministry to prevent Khan from travelling abroad under the 2025 law. He also asked the Bureau of Immigration to issue a Look Out Circular and alert police if Khan tried to leave while the complaint and police investigation were pending.
On October 18, Somaiya wrote to Somaiya Vinayak Munde, the Mumbai FRRO, asking the office to oppose the petition and continue LOC proceedings. He requested that supporting documents be provided to government lawyers and that the office continue Section 7D proceedings after receiving Khan's reply, then issue a reasoned order regardless of the court case's outcome. His letter said police had not granted permission for the gathering.
The bench will revisit the challenge on November 2
The order records the government's request for time and the court's decision to keep the challenged direction in abeyance. The bench initially allowed 10 minutes for the Solicitor General to appear, heard another matter and then returned to Khan's case.
The order records an oral assurance from government counsel without naming the lawyer who gave it. Accounts differ on counsel's identity: Additional Solicitor General Anil C. Singh is named in one account, while another says Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Union government. The court's operative order states:
“ASG seeks time. Matter stands over to November 2 at 3 pm. The order under challenge shall be kept in abeyance till the next date”
The bench is scheduled to take up the challenge again on November 2 at 3:00 p.m. The separate Section 7D process may continue after the agency receives Khan's response, with Somaiya asking it to decide that matter independently of the petition's outcome.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
