Bombay HC to hear on October 26 plea filed by actor Imran Khan against ‘leave India notice’

Bombay High Court is set to consider a petition filed on 17 October 2026 by Indian actor Imran Khan, who claims that the “leave India notice” issued to him by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) in Mumbai is unlawful. The actor, who has worked in both Bollywood and regional cinema, argues that the notice, which demands he leave the country within 24 hours, violates fundamental rights and procedural fairness. Khan has described the document as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional, and is seeking its quashing before any enforcement action can be taken..

The court will hear the case on 26 October, a decision that has already attracted attention from the media and legal circles alike. The FRRO issued the notice under provisions that allow the removal of foreign nationals deemed a threat to public security or who have breached immigration laws. In Khan’s case, the office cited a “violation of registration requirements” and alleged that he had failed to renew his visa within the stipulated period..

However, the actor has not provided any evidence that he was in breach, and he maintains that his visa status was fully compliant at the time of the notice. He argues that the FRRO’s decision was made without a formal hearing, leaving no opportunity for him to contest the allegations. Khan’s lawyer, Meera Patel, said that the notice contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, and Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty..

Patel added that the FRRO had not provided a written statement of the grounds for the notice, a requirement under the Foreigners Act. “The procedure is flawed,” Patel told reporters, “and the actor’s right to a fair hearing has been denied.” She highlighted that the notice was issued in a hurry, allegedly within hours of a local police report that was later found to be unfounded. The case about due process for foreign residents in India..

The matter also touches on a wider debate about the powers of the FRRO and the extent of the judiciary’s oversight. Critics argue that the office, which is responsible for regulating immigration and foreign nationals, has been accused of overstepping its mandate. In 2025, a separate case involving the removal of a prominent filmmaker sparked controversy when the court ruled that the FRRO could not impose a leave notice without a judicial review..

Khan’s case may test whether the High Court will extend that ruling to his situation. According to the petition, Khan’s family has been affected by the notice. He is married to a fellow actor, and the couple has a young son..

The family’s lawyer said that the notice’s immediate enforcement could force them to leave the country, disrupting their children’s education and the actor’s ongoing film projects. Khan has also indicated that he has been working on a bilingual project that could be jeopardised if he is forced to leave India. The court will need to weigh the balance between immigration enforcement and the personal impact on individuals and families..

In a statement, the FRRO defended its action, asserting that the notice was issued after a thorough investigation that revealed a pattern of non-compliance. The office said it had received complaints from several sources about Khan’s alleged failure to update his address with the authorities. The FRRO also stated that the actor’s visa had expired a month ago, a fact that the office claims it was aware of..

The bureau has declined to comment further, citing ongoing investigations. Khan’s case may also affect the Indian film industry’s relationship with foreign talent. The actor is known for his collaborations with international production houses, and his removal from the country could have ripple effects on upcoming projects..

Industry insiders note that several foreign co‑stars have expressed concerns about the stability of their work commitments amid stricter immigration controls. The High Court’s decision could set a precedent that shapes how the FRRO handles similar cases in the future. Legal experts say that the High Court will consider both procedural and substantive issues..

Procedurally, the court will examine whether the FRRO complied with the procedural safeguards mandated by the Foreigners Act. Substantively, it will evaluate whether the notice violates constitutional guarantees. The court has a history of scrutinising such notices; in 2024, it struck down a leave notice issued to a Pakistani diplomat on similar grounds..

The current case may add to a growing body of jurisprudence that limits the FRRO’s unilateral power. The actor’s supporters have taken to social media to voice their backing, calling the notice “unfair” and demanding a fair hearing. Hashtags such as #JusticeForKhan have trended on Twitter, with many celebrities joining the conversation..

Meanwhile, the government’s spokesperson said that it was “confident in the FRRO’s decision” and that the court would respect the authority of the immigration agency. The spokesperson added that the court’s review would not delay the enforcement of the notice. On the night before the hearing, Khan appeared at a press conference to explain his position..

He said that he was shocked by the notice, as he had never been summoned by the FRRO before. He insisted that he was fully compliant with all visa and residency requirements. Khan also appealed to the court to grant him a stay on the notice, citing the “risk of severe hardship” that could result from an immediate removal..

The actor’s lawyer reiterated that the court must grant an interim relief to prevent irreversible damage while the merits of the case are considered. The High Court will hear arguments from both sides on 26 October, with a verdict expected within the next few days. The decision will be closely watched by legal scholars, immigration officials and the entertainment community..

If the court quashes the leave.