The Process is the Punishment: Why Imran Khan's 'Leave India' Notice is Illegal

The government bets a weak legal case will still succeed, as getting it overturned is slow, costly and exhausting.

Even though the Leave India notice alleges that Imran Khan has violated the provisions of the 2025 Act, the notice does not mention a single provision of the 2025 Act which Imran Khan is alleged to have violated.

(Photo: Altered by Aroop Mishra/The Quint)

The 'Leave India' notice issued to actor Imran Khan by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office in Mumbai is illegal, and the government knows it.

The notice is issued under Section 29 and read with Section 7(2)(c) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025. These sections give the government the power to “remove” a foreigner from India in two specific circumstances: by violation of the Foreigners Act 2025 (or rules or orders made under it), or by receiving an “adverse security report”

The precursor to Section 29 of the Foreigners Act was the colonial-era Passport (Entry Into India) Act, 1920. Specifically, Section 5 of the Passport Act, 1920, allows the government to remove any foreigner who has entered India in violation of the Passport Act or rules made under it.

What the 2025 legislation does is introduce a new ground for the removal of foreigners—“an adverse security report.” This is a new term that has been introduced in the 2025 law for the first time. No other law defines what an “adverse security report” is or who is authorised to give such a report.

In any case, this is not relevant in Imran Khan’s case since no such report is alleged to have been given by any agency, nor does the notice speak of one.

Unconstitutional Foundations

A bare statement of the sequence of events here would be enough to see why the 'Leave India' notice to Imran Khan is illegal.

1. On October 10, Imran Khan was detained by the police for a couple of hours (along with 300 to 400 other persons) as part of the crackdown on protests at the August Kranti Maidan against CEC Gyanesh Kumar . 

2. Later that evening, a First Information Report was filed by Mumbai Police alleging that Imran Khan (and others) had committed offences relating to disobedience to a public servant’s order, wrongful restraint, unlawful assembly and rioting, punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. The next day, Kirit Somaiya, taking note of Imran Khan’s presence at the protest, wrote to the police demanding that he be asked to leave India.

4. On 14 October, a “Leave India” notice was issued by the Foreigners Registration Office (FRRO) to Imran Khan to leave India by 28 October.

Even though the "Leave India" notice alleges that Imran Khan has violated the provisions of the 2025 Act, the notice does not mention a single provision of the 2025 Act which Imran Khan is alleged to have violated.

Even the FIR filed against him only relates to offences under the BNS, and at no point have the police pointed out exactly what part of the 2025 Act Imran Khan has violated. The whole exercise seems to have been initiated by a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) politician upset about a “foreigner” having participated in largely peaceful protests.

Reference to his Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) status and the Citizenship Act is a red herring here. Even assuming that there are legitimate grounds to cancel Khan’s OCI card, a notice has to be issued to him first, a hearing given, and then the card cancelled.

The procedure under the Citizenship Act (proviso to Section 7-D) cannot be bypassed simply by using Section 29 of the Foreigners Act 2025.

Weak Evidence

For the moment , though, Imran Khan will not be deported until 2 November at least since the Bombay High Court has stayed the operation of the Leave India Notice. This is not because the government has a weak case but because of a last-minute adjournment sought by the Additional Solicitor General of India, Anil Singh, since Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who was supposed to appear, could not.

What is most baffling is why the Union Government is fielding its topmost law officer in a matter like this. Surely the Union of India has much more important and vital litigations pending on any given day that would require the attention of its second most important law officer?

One possible conclusion one can draw in the circumstances is that the weakness of the case is probably not news to the Union Government. It has acted in haste against a person who is about as dangerous to the security of the nation as a toothless hamster (no disrespect to Imran Khan).

Given that the issue has become a matter of public attention, thanks to the involvement of the BJP MP in instigating the action, perhaps the government felt that the presence of the SG would strengthen a weak case in law.

The Leave India Notice therefore feels like lawfare—the use of a legal proceeding to deter or punish someone for exercising their legitimate rights.

This is not new or extremely surprising. Something similar happened to Atish Taseer for an article in a magazine. It has been happening to journalists and commentators based outside of India for a while now. Few of these are even remotely sustainable in court, but the government bets on the fact that the process to get them overturned is slow, cumbersome, and expensive.

(Alok Prasanna is the Co-founder and Senior Resident Fellow at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. This is an opinion piece, and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)