India
oi-Prakash KL
The Bombay High Court on Monday asked actor Imran Khan to submit an unconditional apology for participating in protests against the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, while extending the stay on a Leave India Notice issued against him.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi was hearing Khan’s petition challenging the notice issued by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), Mumbai. The court extended the suspension of the notice until December 7 and directed that Khan be given an opportunity to respond to it.
The Bombay High Court on Monday criticized actor Imran Khan for joining anti-CEC protests and demanded an apology from him for inciting them, highlighting that he is not an Indian citizen.
During the hearing, the court observed that Khan is a US citizen and an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card holder and, therefore, cannot claim the same rights as an Indian citizen.
“If an Indian citizen had committed a similar act abroad, they would have been deported to India on the very next flight,” NDTV quoted the court as saying.
The bench also questioned Khan’s participation in protests over SIR, observing that he was not directly affected by the electoral roll revision. “You will have to apologise because all this is instigation,” the Chief Justice told Khan’s counsel.
The court indicated that Khan would be required to file an undertaking and an unconditional apology. At the same time, it said his long association with India and his work in the country could be considered while deciding the matter.
The court also made it clear that an OCI card holder cannot be treated on par with an Indian citizen when it comes to political rights.
“You have been residing in India for so many years, yet you never participated in any protest during all this time. Why have you chosen to participate in a protest now, after living here for so long?” the court questioned.
“Go to the USA and participate in protests there and you can even go and cast your vote, but you protesting anything here won’t be tolerated,” the court added.
The bench said it may clarify in its order that an OCI card holder cannot participate in or criticise matters in the same manner as an Indian citizen while residing in India.
Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing for the government, strongly opposed Khan’s petition.
He argued that Khan, being a foreign citizen, does not have the same rights as an Indian citizen and has no legally enforceable right to remain in India. According to Singh, a foreigner’s fundamental protection is primarily under Article 21 of the Constitution and an OCI card does not confer a right to reside in India.
The government also maintained that authorities have wide powers to issue a Leave India Notice to an OCI card holder.
The court acknowledged that the legal position on OCI card holders is settled and that they cannot be treated on par with Indian citizens. However, it questioned whether Khan should be given an opportunity to respond to the notice before any final decision is taken.
“Suppose he had not been there and there was no material on any site, then in that situation what would you have done?” the Chief Justice asked the government counsel.
The court also pointed out that the October 28 deadline mentioned in the Leave India Notice had already passed. Khan’s counsel told the court that he had been granted an OCI card in 2006 and had earlier held a Person of Indian Origin (PIO) facility.
The bench said that while it agreed with the government’s position on the limited rights of OCI card holders, Khan should be allowed to respond to the allegations and the Leave India Notice.
The court ordered that the suspension of the Leave India Notice would continue until the FRRO considers Khan’s response and takes a decision in accordance with law.
The matter has been posted for December 7.
Khan, 43, is a US citizen and holds an OCI card. In his petition, he has challenged the legal basis of the Leave India Notice, arguing that it does not clearly identify the specific legal provision he allegedly violated.
