Mumbai, Nov 2 (PTI) The Bombay High Court on Monday severely criticised actor Imran Khan, a US citizen holding an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card, for participating in a political protest in Mumbai, observing that the fundamental right to protest is unavailable to foreign nationals.
The proceedings culminated in the actor tendering an unconditional apology, prompting the court to urge the government to show magnanimity while posting the matter for next hearing on December 7.
The court extended it’s earlier order keeping in abeyance the ‘Leave India’ notice issued to Khan by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), asking him to leave the country by October 28 for participating in a protest against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar over the SIR issue in Mumbai last month.
The 43-year-old actor had filed a plea in the HC challenging the notice, terming it as arbitrary and drastic in nature.
The court asked the FRRO and the Maharashtra government to file their affidavits to the petition by December 7.
A bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna said the magnanimity of India is such that a US citizen (Khan) holding an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card is first issued a notice, asking him to leave the country, instead of deporting him forthwith.
Khan’s counsel Venkatesh Dhond immediately submitted an undertaking that the actor would not participate in any protest in the future and also tendered an unconditional apology to the court.
The high court observed the right to protest is not available to an OCI cardholder and extended its earlier order keeping the notice in abeyance until then (December 7).
“If an Indian had done the same thing elsewhere would it have been tolerated? If this had happened in America, the person would have been put on the next flight back to India,” the court remarked.
The bench suggested Khan to consider taking Indian citizenship if he was so keen on participating in protests.
The court said while it was not disputing the powers of the authorities to take such an action (to issue notice), certain ground realities also need to be considered.
“He (Khan) is ready to tender an unconditional apology. He has been in India since childhood. Show some magnanimity and a big heart now. We have to be ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ (the world is one family),” the court said.
As far as law is concerned, the authorities have sovereign powers, the court said, adding they would be well within their powers to deport the ‘Delhi Belly’ actor.
“As an OCI cardholder, you (Khan) are at the mercy of this country. Hence, such behaviour cannot be tolerated, but one chance can be given,” the HC said.
The court questioned as to what right does Khan have to participate in a protest that concerns Indian citizens.
For what had he (Khan) gone to a place of protest (in Mumbai)? the bench asked while adding in a lighter vein that the actor does not even have any film coming up to promote.
“The rights Indian citizens enjoy and the rights available to OCI cardholders are different. If he had been an Indian citizen then the situation would have been different,” Chief Justice Tripathi noted .
Khan holds an OCI card and hence he cannot behave like an Indian citizen, the bench added.
“You (Khan) had no right to participate in a protest of such nature. You have no connection with the SIR (Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls undertaken by EC). The right to protest is not available to an OCI cardholder,” the HC emphasised.
Senior counsel Dhond, appearing for Khan, immediately tendered an undertaking to the court on behalf of the actor, assuring that his client would not participate in any protest in future and would not instigate anyone to do so, too.
The court then said an undertaking in itself would not suffice and insisted the actor should tender an unconditional apology.
Khan is here in India since childhood, has worked in films here and has earned recognition thanks to this country, the court said.
“Your social media posts (after the actor was released from detention by police) amounted to instigation. You have young followers who are bound to get influenced,” it added.
The FRRO had issued the ‘Leave India’ order under Sections 7(2)(C) and 29 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, which empower the government to restrict the movement of foreign nationals and enforce mandatory removal.
Under the notice, Khan was directed to leave the country on or before October 28, failing which deportation procedures would be initiated against him.
The action followed Khan’s brief detention by police during the October 10 demonstration at Mumbai’s historical August Kranti Maidan. The rally was organised in solidarity with an agitation by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), demanding the resignation of CEC Kumar over alleged irregularities in the SIR of voter rolls.
In his petition challenging the FRRO notice, filed through advocate Zulfiquar Memon, Khan claimed he had not participated in the gathering and had no association or affiliation with its organisers.
Terming the notice “illegal, arbitrary, perverse and drastic,” the actor alleged that the action reflected “patent non-application of mind and the arbitrary targeting” of a public figure.
“Not only is the notice manifestly disproportionate, if implemented, it would reduce the very principles of natural justice that the authorities are duty-bound to uphold, to nothing but a dead letter,” the petition argued.
Khan sought the quashing of the FRRO notice, a stay on its operation during the pendency of the petition, and a direction restraining the authorities from taking any coercive measures against him.
In addition to the departure order, the actor, nephew of Bollywood superstar Aamir Khan, also received a separate show-cause notice from the FRRO, seeking clarification on why his OCI status should not be revoked.
An OCI cardholder does not enjoy freedom granted under Article 19 of the Constitution, according to the notice. PTI SP SKL RSY
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.