The Bombay High Court on Monday asked actor Imran Khan to tender an unconditional apology for participating in protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and file an undertaking that he would not take part in similar demonstrations in the future, LiveLaw reported.
The court, however, extended the suspension of a Leave India Notice issued to Khan by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), Mumbai, until the actor is given an opportunity to respond to it. The matter will next be heard on December 7.
A division bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna was hearing Khan's petition challenging the notice, which had directed him to leave India by October 28. At the previous hearing, the FRRO had assured the court that no action would be taken against him until Monday.
According to LiveLaw, the bench orally observed that Khan, being an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder, had no reason to participate in protests concerning the SIR exercise, as he was not directly affected by it. The court asked him to clarify the purpose of his presence at the demonstration and state categorically whether he had any association with the protesters or organisers.
“You need to clarify were you there for protests or for some other work? You will have to categorically make a statement that you had no association with the protests etc. Because the agitation was with regards to SIR, with which you have no concern at all,” the bench orally remarked, as quoted by LiveLaw.
The court said Khan would have to submit an unconditional apology before it accepted his undertaking not to participate in similar protests. “Suppose you have participated inadvertently etc then you need to apologise. Without such unconditional apology we will not accept your undertaking,” the bench said.
LiveLaw reported that the Chief Justice also remarked that an OCI cardholder could not be treated on a par with an Indian citizen and could not participate in protests of this nature while residing in India. The bench said Khan could participate in demonstrations in the United States, but his participation in protests in India would not be tolerated.
Senior advocate Venkatesh Dhond, appearing for Khan, told the court that the actor had no association with the protesters or organisers and had not been summoned for questioning or asked to record a statement in connection with the case. He submitted that Khan had lived in India for almost his entire life, except for the first two years after his birth in the United States.
Dhond also informed the bench that Khan was willing to give an undertaking that he would not participate in protests in the future. The court questioned why the actor, who was a celebrity, had attended the demonstration, asking whether there was any connection with a film promotion or other work.
Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing for the Centre, opposed the petition, arguing that Khan had no legally enforceable right to reside in India as an OCI cardholder. According to LiveLaw, Singh told the court that Khan had stated in his petition that he attended the protest out of curiosity, but had allegedly instigated people through social media.
Singh submitted that the Centre had the power to direct an OCI cardholder to leave India and that the actor could not claim a right to continue residing in the country. He also referred to Supreme Court judgments upholding the Centre's powers in matters concerning foreign nationals.
The bench said it agreed with the Centre's submissions on the limited rights of OCI cardholders. However, it questioned whether the Leave India Notice could have been issued without giving Khan an opportunity to respond, particularly when he had not been found to have violated any law during his years in India.
“Can such an order be passed, especially considering the fact that he hasn't violated any law of the land all these years?” the Chief Justice orally asked, as reported by LiveLaw.
The court also sought to know the status of the FIR registered in connection with the protest and asked whether there was any material indicating Khan's involvement. Government Pleader Anjali Helekar, appearing for the Maharashtra government, said she would seek instructions on the issue.
The bench further questioned what action the authorities would have taken if Khan had not attended the protest or if there had been no material linking him to it. It noted that the October 28 deadline in the Leave India Notice had already passed and said the actor should be allowed to respond before the FRRO took a final decision.
The court ultimately continued the suspension of the Leave India Notice until the FRRO decides the matter after giving Khan an opportunity to respond. The order also clarified that an OCI cardholder cannot be treated on a par with an Indian citizen.
