The Bombay High Court on Monday (November 2) accepted actor Imran Khan's unconditional apology for participating in a protest demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, after he undertook not to participate in similar protests in the future.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna also extended the operation of its interim order suspending the 'Leave India Notice' issued to Khan by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), Mumbai.

The protection will continue until the FRRO decides the matter after giving Khan an opportunity to respond to the notice.

The Bench clarified that Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholders cannot be treated at par with Indian citizens and that the right to participate in protests available to citizens does not extend to OCI cardholders.

The Court took on record Khan's unconditional apology and undertaking after observing that he had been living and working in India for several years and had gained recognition in the country.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on December 7.

Khan had approached the High Court challenging the Leave India Notice issued by the FRRO, directing him to leave India by October 28. During the previous hearing, the FRRO had assured the Court that no coercive steps would be taken against him until November 2.

'What for were you there?': Bombay HC questions actor's participation in SIR protest

During the hearing, the Bench questioned why Khan, an OCI cardholder who is not entitled to vote in India, had participated in a protest concerning the SIR exercise.

The Court asked him to clarify whether he had attended the gathering to participate in the protest or for some other purpose. It emphasised that he would have to make a categorical statement that he had no association with the organisers or protesters.

The Court further observed that an OCI cardholder could not claim the same rights as an Indian citizen and said that Khan would have to furnish an undertaking that he would not participate in such agitations in the future.

The Bench also indicated that it would require an unconditional apology before accepting the undertaking.

The Court added that Khan was not even remotely affected by SIR and he had no business there.

At another point, the Chief Justice observed that a person participating in protests in a foreign country could face consequences, adding that Khan could not expect to exercise rights available to Indian citizens while residing in India as an OCI cardholder.

Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond, appearing for Khan, submitted that his client had not been called for questioning or for recording his statement in connection with the FIR. He also denied that Khan had any association with the organisers or protesters.

Dhond told the Court that Khan had spent almost his entire life in India, barring the first two years in the United States, where he was born. He also informed the Bench that Khan had held OCI status since 2006 and had earlier been granted Person of Indian Origin (PIO) status.

The Court, however, questioned why Khan, being a public figure, had attended the protest.

Dhond submitted that Khan was willing to give an undertaking that he would not participate in such protests in the future.

The Bench, however, said an unconditional apology was also necessary, observing that Khan had received recognition in India despite being an OCI cardholder and should acknowledge the circumstances of his participation.

The Chief Justice remarked that the country should show magnanimity towards a person who had lived and worked in India for so many years.

Centre says OCI cardholder has no right to reside in India

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing for the Union Government, opposed the petition and submitted that Khan had gone beyond merely attending the protest. Referring to statements allegedly made by him on social media, the ASG argued that he had instigated people to participate in the agitation.

Singh submitted that an OCI cardholder enjoys limited rights and that the Central Government has sovereign powers to ask a foreign national to leave India.

He argued that even a person holding a lifelong visa could be prevented from entering India in certain circumstances and that an OCI cardholder could not claim an enforceable right to continue residing in the country.

The ASG further submitted that Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, did not confer a right on a foreign national to reside in India.

The Bench said it agreed with the Centre's position that OCI cardholders cannot be treated at par with Indian citizens. However, it questioned whether a Leave India Notice could be sustained without first giving Khan an opportunity to respond, particularly when he had lived in the country for several years.

The Chief Justice also questioned what action the authorities would have taken had Khan not attended the protest or if there had been no material against him.

The Bench observed that although the Centre possessed sovereign powers in matters concerning foreign nationals, the facts of the individual case and the petitioner's long residence in India also warranted consideration.

When the ASG said that a person enjoying the benefits of OCI status was expected to act more responsibly, the Chief Justice referred to the principle of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.

FRRO to consider Khan's response before deciding Leave India Notice

The Court thereafter took note of Khan's categorical undertaking and unconditional apology. It clarified that OCI cardholders are not at par with Indian citizens and that the right to participate in protests does not apply to them.

The ASG submitted that the Centre would file its response to the petition.

The Bench extended the operation of its interim order suspending the Leave India Notice, making it clear that Khan would not have to leave India until the FRRO considers his response and takes a decision in accordance with the law.

The Court also recorded Khan's apology and undertaking and listed the matter for further hearing on December 7.

The petition challenges the Leave India Notice issued by the FRRO, Mumbai, which had directed the actor to leave India by October 28.

The notice had been kept in abeyance following the FRRO's earlier assurance before the High Court that no steps would be taken against him until the next hearing.