Bollywood actor Imran Khan, a US national, has been ordered to leave India by October 28 under a law that lets the government tell any foreigner he “shall not remain in India”, an order his lawyer has said will be challenged in the Bombay high court.
A former BJP MP had complained to Mumbai Police about his participation, PTI reported. PTI reported that Khan also holds an OCI card; HT could not independently verify this. Two laws bear on cases like Khan’s. The card is open to foreign citizens of Indian origin and to foreign spouses of Indian citizens or cardholders. It puts holders on par with Indian citizens or non-resident Indians (NRIs) on domestic airfares, monument entry fees, buying property other than farmland, and practising professions such as medicine and law. Some activities still need special permission. This includes research, missionary or Tabligh (Islamic preaching) work, mountaineering, journalism, work at foreign missions and visits to protected areas. Cardholders cannot vote, contest elections or hold most government jobs, and cannot become president, vice-president or a judge of the Supreme Court or a high court. Through an order covering all foreigners, a group of them or one person, it can restrict where foreigners go and what they do, or tell them to leave. The order in Khan’s notice is one of those the section lists. It covers where foreigners live and travel, whom they associate with and what they possess; employment, a limit that does not apply to OCI cardholders; producing films and web shows for public screening; and mountaineering. Neither the Act nor the Order explicitly prohibits foreign nationals from taking part in protests or political activity. The Centre can modify or cancel any order they issue. The Bureau of Immigration works under the supervision of the Intelligence Bureau. Officers the Centre notifies can settle such offences for a payment, in a process known as compounding. Cancelling an OCI card falls under Section 7D of the Citizenship Act. The Delhi high court has ruled on how the Citizenship Act and the old Foreigners Act can be applied together. Owners of premises that foreigners frequent can appeal against a civil authority’s directions, and carriers such as airlines can appeal against two kinds of penalties. The action has brought the rights and restrictions governing OCI cardholders, particularly their participation in political activities, into focus. Can an OCI cardholder participate in a political protest, and can the government order them to leave the country? An OCI cardholder remains a foreign national and holds the passport of another country. The card does not confer Indian citizenship or the full set of rights enjoyed by Indian citizens.
The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) in Mumbai issued the notice, dated October 14, four days after police briefly detained Khan at a protest in Mumbai demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The 2025 immigration law lets the government and authorised officials order any foreigner out of the country. The Citizenship Act, 1955 lays out separate rules for holders of an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card, a status open to foreign nationals of Indian origin. It cites two sections of the Act as its authority: Section 7, which lets the government order a foreigner to leave, and Section 29, which lets it remove one. The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, came into force on September 1, 2025, replacing the Foreigners Act, 1946, along with three other laws. Section 7 gives the central government wide control over a foreigner’s presence in India. The Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025, issued under the Act, has a chapter titled ‘Restrictions on certain activities of foreigners’. Section 28 lets the Centre delegate these powers. A home ministry notification of September 1, 2025, gave the powers to order a foreigner out to every state and Union territory government, to the chief of the Bureau of Immigration, and to FRROs and foreigners registration officers, the officials who register and track foreign nationals. An order under Section 7 can also make the foreigner pay for his own removal. Section 23, the Act’s catch-all penalty, punishes breaches of a rule, order or direction that carry no specific penalty elsewhere in the Act, with up to three years in jail, a fine of up to ₹ 3 lakh, or both. The 2025 Act provides for appeals in three situations. Rules explained as Imran Khan is asked to leave India Actor Imran Khan, who was claimed to be an American citizen and Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder, has been asked to leave India by October 28 after participating in a protest demanding the resignation of chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in Mumbai.
The notice, issued on the letterhead of the Bureau of Immigration, says Khan has “contravened the provisions of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 and the Rules and Orders made thereunder”. The notice orders that Khan “shall not remain in India and shall depart from India on or before 28.10.2026”. It warns that non-compliance “will render you liable for prosecution under the relevant sections” of the Act. The notice describes Khan as a “United States of America national”. A 2021 Union home ministry notification says that a cardholder “is a foreign national holding passport of a foreign country and is not a citizen of India”. The card permits multiple-entry lifelong visa for visiting India “for any purpose”. It simply defines a foreigner as “a person who is not a citizen of India”. An order can also bar a foreigner “from engaging in activities of a specified description”. A police official told PTI: “Under relevant provisions of the Foreigners/Immigration Act, foreign nationals are prohibited from participating in political protests or political activities on Indian soil. Section 29 lets the Centre remove a foreigner who breaches the Act, its rules or its orders, or who is the subject of “an adverse security report”. Once it orders a removal, any government officer has “all reasonable powers necessary to enforce” it. The government can cancel one for reasons such as fraud, “disaffection towards the Constitution”, certain prison sentences and breaches of notified laws. It can also cancel one where it considers this necessary for India’s sovereignty, security or foreign relations, or “in the interests of the general public”. Since January 2020, the law has required that the cardholder first be “given a reasonable opportunity of being heard”. In a November 2024 case, in which the government cancelled an OCI card and blacklisted its holder, the high court held that the Foreigners Act applies to OCI cardholders, but that the Citizenship Act gives them “a unique status with distinct rights and procedural protections”. If the government blacklists a cardholder on grounds that mirror those for cancellation, the court said, the same hearing safeguard applies. In the same judgment, the court cited a 1955 Constitution Bench ruling that the government’s power to expel foreigners is “absolute and unlimited”.
Earlier reporting noted: What is an OCI card? Earlier reporting noted: But what does an OCI card allow its holder to do in India? Earlier reporting noted: Despite its name, OCI is not dual citizenship.
Khan received the notice on Thursday, said his counsel Parvez Memon.
What happens next?
In a 2025 ruling, the court held that the hearing must include telling the cardholder the grounds for the action. Both the rulings came before the 2025 Act took effect. Ruling in 1991 on foreign missionaries ordered to leave India, it said: “The fundamental right of the foreigner is confined to Article 21 for life and liberty and does not include the right to reside and settle in this country, as mentioned in Article 19(1)(e), which is applicable only to the citizens of this country.
The Supreme Court has held that a foreigner’s constitutional protection is narrower than a citizen’s.
“We are in the process of finalising the petition and once it’s drafted, we will file it in the high court tomorrow (Friday) and also try to mention the case for urgent hearing,” Khan’s counsel Memon said.
