Imran Khan gets notice from Foreigners Regional Registration Office over his OCI tag

Bollywood actor Imran Khan has received a show-cause notice from the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) in Mumbai asking why his Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) registration should not be cancelled following his participation in a protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The fresh notice, issued on Saturday, came days after immigration authorities directed the 43-year-old actor, who is a US citizen, to leave India by October 28 for allegedly violating provisions of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.

Khan has been given 15 days to respond to the latest notice, which cites his presence at a demonstration near August Kranti Maidan in Mumbai on October 10.

The actor had participated in the gathering organised in support of protests against the Chief Election Commissioner in Delhi. Mumbai Police briefly detained him and several other demonstrators during the protest.

𝗙𝗥𝗥𝗢 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗸𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻

According to the notice, the demonstration was held without police permission, and a case of unlawful assembly was registered against Khan and other participants.

The FRRO has sought his explanation before deciding whether his OCI registration should be cancelled under Section 7D of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

The authorities acknowledged that registration of an FIR or detention by police does not automatically establish grounds for cancelling OCI status. Similarly, participation in a protest does not, by itself, conclusively justify revocation.

Khan, who holds an American passport, was granted OCI registration on December 15, 2006.

Under the Citizenship Act, an OCI cardholder must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the government takes a decision on cancellation.

𝗔𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗛𝗶𝗴𝗵 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁

Meanwhile, Khan has approached the Bombay High Court challenging the earlier notice issued on October 14 directing him to leave the country.

In his petition, filed through advocate Zulfiquar Memon and MZM Legal, the actor described the order as arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to established legal procedures.

He argued that the authorities had failed to specify the exact statutory provisions he had allegedly violated or provide supporting material justifying his removal from India.

The petition also contended that the order was issued without an inquiry, prior show-cause notice or opportunity to respond.

Khan has sought the quashing of the directive, an interim stay on its operation and protection against coercive action while his petition remains pending.

The matter is expected to be mentioned before a division bench of the Bombay High Court for an urgent hearing.

𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗸𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗼𝘄

The controversy began after Khan joined demonstrators near August Kranti Maidan on October 10, demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

A complaint was subsequently lodged with Mumbai Police by former BJP MP Kirit Somaiya, questioning the actor's participation in the political demonstration despite holding foreign citizenship.

The FRRO's initial notice cited Sections 7 and 29 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, which empower authorised authorities to direct foreign nationals to leave India and provide for their removal under specified circumstances.

However, Khan's petition maintains that there is no explicit statutory prohibition preventing an OCI cardholder from participating in a peaceful demonstration.

𝗢𝗖𝗜 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘆

OCI registration allows eligible foreign nationals of Indian origin to reside and work in India without obtaining regular visas, although it does not confer Indian citizenship or political rights such as voting and contesting elections.

The Citizenship Act provides for cancellation of OCI registration under specified circumstances, including concerns relating to national security, sovereignty and public interest.

The latest notice opens a separate process concerning Khan's OCI registration, while his legal challenge to the directive requiring him to leave India remains pending before the High Court.

The outcome will depend on the authorities' consideration of his response and the court's examination of the legality of the earlier order.