The Bombay High Court will hear actor Imran Khan’s plea challenging the Foreigners Regional Registration Office’s (FRRO) October 14 direction asking him to leave India on October 26.

The plea, titled Imran Khan Pal v. Union of India & Ors., was mentioned on Monday before a division bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna.

Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond, appearing for Khan, submitted that the FRRO issued the notice after the actor attempted to attend a protest but was stopped midway and had to return. He informed the Court that the Central government had been served a copy of the petition and requested an early hearing on October 21.

The Court, however, scheduled the matter for October 26 to allow the FRRO time to obtain instructions on the petition.

The bench also asked Khan to implead the State of Maharashtra as a party to the proceedings to ascertain whether he has any criminal antecedents.

“Are there any criminal antecedents? Join State as party, so that in case. This is a local matter. So make State of Maharashtra a party,” the Court observed.

In his petition, Khan has challenged the October 14 directive, alleging that the authorities acted hastily without granting him a prior hearing or following the statutory safeguards available to him as an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder.

He has further alleged that the decision was influenced by political social media campaigns against him rather than an independent assessment by the authorities.

The FRRO issued the ‘Leave India Notice’ after Khan was briefly detained by the police following his participation in demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The directive came shortly after BJP leader Kirit Somaiya filed a First Information Report (FIR) at Mumbai’s Gamdevi police station, alleging public-order violations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In his petition filed on October 17, Khan has argued that the FRRO bypassed Section 7D of the Citizenship Act, which provides for cancellation of OCI registration. He contends that the provision requires authorities to issue a formal show-cause notice and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard before cancelling an OCI registration.

On October 17, the FRRO separately issued a show-cause notice asking Khan to explain why his OCI registration should not be cancelled under Section 7D. However, Khan has not challenged that notice in the present petition.

Khan has sought quashing of the October 14 directive and an interim stay on its operation. He has also requested the Court to restrain the authorities from taking coercive steps, including deportation, issuing lookout notices, blacklisting him or interfering with his OCI status. Additionally, he has sought the production of all internal records underlying the decision.

Dhond was briefed by advocates Zulfiquar Memon, Parvez Memon and Chirag Naik of MZM Legal.