Bollywood actor Imran Khan gets a temporary leave in his legal battle against the FRRO notice directing him to leave India immediately. The Bombay High Court on Tuesday deferred the hearing on his petition until November 2 after the Centre sought more time. The government assured the court that no coercive action would be taken against the actor in the meantime, and the notice would remain in abeyance until the next hearing.
The development comes a day before the deadline given to Imran Khan by the FRRO, the Foreigners Regional Registration Office, to leave the country. The actor, a US citizen holding an Overseas Citizen of India card(OCI), has challenged the notice, calling it arbitrary and questioning grounds on which it was issued.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna heard the matter on Tuesday. During the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, sought more time and suggested that the matter be posted for hearing the following Monday. Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond, counsel for Imran, pointed out the emergency, saying, “But I have to leave tomorrow”. The ASG responded, “May keep it on Monday. Nothing will happen. That is an oral assurance.”
The plea stems from an incident that occurred on October 10 when Mumbai police detained actor Imran Khan near August Kranti Maidan. The actor was spotted at the protest site where agitations were being held against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation over the FIR of electoral rolls. He was detained along with partner Lekha Washington and his cousin Zain Marie Khan.
His team, challenging the petition, claimed that Khan did not participate in the protest but was seen at the venue while he was getting into his car. He was detained when the media personnel surrounded him. Following his detention on October 14, the FRRO issued him a leave-India notice, giving a deadline until October 28. The notice was issued under Section 7(2)(c) and 29 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act 2025.
He challenged the notice through a petition, Imran Khan Pal v. Union of India and ors filed by lawyers Zulfiqar Menon, Parvez Menon and Kunal Vajani. He argued that the notice was arbitrary, violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and had been given without any prior hearing or show cause notice.
In his petition, he questioned the basis for the order, saying it was issued “without disclosing any reasons, supporting material, or specific statutory contravention.”The petition also alleged that the action stemmed from a politically motivated complaint and showed “patent non-application of mind.” He denied actively participating in the protest, maintaining that no demonstration was underway when he arrived at the spot.
Citing long-standing ties to India, where he has lived since the age of two, he pointed out his personal and professional commitments in the country while stressing that he had no criminal antecedents. He sought interim protection against the notice and asked the court to quash