The petition—titled Imran Khan Pal v. Union of India & Ors and filed through law firm MZM Legal—terms the expulsion directive "illegal, arbitrary, perverse, and bad in law." The move comes in tandem with a second, separate show-cause notice issued to Khan over the weekend under Section 7D of the Citizenship Act, asking why his Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder status should not be permanently revoked.
The matter is set to be mentioned this morning for an urgent hearing before a division bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna.
Grounds of Challenge: Denial of Natural Justice & Forty Years of Roots
In his comprehensive petition, the 43-year-old actor detailed several fatal procedural and statutory flaws in the executive order:
No Reasons Disclosed & No Prior Hearing: Khan stated that the FRRO notice failed to identify any specific rule, visa clause, or statutory provision he had supposedly breached. By issuing an abrupt 14-day exit deadline without a preliminary inquiry, notice, or opportunity to defend himself, the authorities breached the basic principles of natural justice.
Four Decades of Unbroken Residence: The plea emphasizes that Khan—an American citizen by birth—has lived continuously in India since he was two years old. He has paid taxes, built his career, family, and home in Mumbai for over four decades, meaning a summary expulsion uproots his entire life without due legal process.
Constitutional Protections (Articles 14 and 21): The defense argues that while non-citizens cannot exercise political voting rights, the fundamental guarantees of equality before the law (Article 14) and protection of life and personal liberty (Article 21) apply to all persons on Indian territory, safeguarding them against arbitrary executive action.
Rebutting the October 10 Protest Allegations
Addressing the controversy originating from the August Kranti Maidan protest against the Chief Election Commissioner:
No Disruption or Unlawful Entry: Khan’s petition maintains that he never crossed police barricades, breached prohibited zones, or raised provocative slogans.
The Detainment Sequence: According to the plea, Khan was merely present in the vicinity as a local resident of the city. As he was walking back to his car, media reporters congregated around him to ask questions, following which police personnel escorted him and his companions into a van.
Zero Criminal Record: The petition underlines that Mumbai Police have not filed any charge sheet, FIR, or formal criminal complaint against him in connection with the gathering, leaving the expulsion order without evidentiary foundation.
The OCI Legal Boundary: Khan’s counsel argued that Indian immigration regulations and OCI guidelines do not impose an explicit statutory prohibition disallowing an OCI holder from peaceable congregation or presence in public assemblies.
Khan’s counsel, led by Zulfiquar Memon, Parvez Memon, and Chirag Naik, has urged the High Court to issue protective orders restraining the Union government and FRRO from revoking his OCI status or issuing any Look Out Circulars (LOC) while the petition remains pending.
Trade & Legal Take:
By challenging the order directly before the Bombay High Court, Imran Khan has converted a sudden deportation threat into a landmark test case on the constitutional boundaries of Overseas Citizen of India status. If the bench grants an interim stay against the October 28 deadline today, Khan secures the runway needed to fight the OCI revocation process through proper administrative channels; an adverse order, however, would force him onto a flight out of Mumbai before the month ends.
