OCIs Are Not Citizens: Bombay High Court’s Imran Khan Case Raises a Fundamental Question About Political Expression, Citizenship and the Government’s Power to Remove Foreign Nationals

Introduction: Can an OCI Cardholder Criticise India While Living in India?

Can a foreign national who holds an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card participate in a political protest in India?

Can such a person publicly criticise the functioning of an Indian constitutional institution?

And can the Government direct that person to leave India merely because of alleged participation in a political demonstration?

These questions have acquired considerable legal significance following the proceedings before the Bombay High Court involving actor Imran Khan Pal, a United States citizen and OCI cardholder.

The controversy arose after Khan was allegedly involved in a demonstration in Mumbai on 10 October 2026, concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

A few days later, the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) issued a Leave India Notice dated 14 October 2026, directing him to leave India by 28 October.

Khan challenged the notice before the Bombay High Court.

During the hearing on 2 November 2026, the Division Bench reportedly made strong observations about the distinction between Indian citizens and OCI cardholders.

The Court orally observed:

“OCI Card Holder cannot criticise or venture into all this by living here…this will not be tolerated.”

The Bench also questioned Khan’s participation in the SIR-related demonstration, observing that he was not remotely affected by the electoral revision exercise and could not claim equality with Indian citizens.

The Court sought an unconditional apology and an undertaking concerning future participation in similar protests.

However, there is another side to this proceeding that deserves equal attention.

The Bench also questioned whether the FRRO could issue a direction requiring a person who had lived in India for over four decades to leave the country without first giving him an opportunity to explain his conduct.

The Court continued interim protection against the Leave India Notice and directed that Khan be given an opportunity to respond before the FRRO finally decides the matter.

The next hearing was fixed for 7 December 2026.

The Three Legal Principles at the Heart of the Dispute

In my assessment, the real significance of this case lies in the intersection of three legal principles:

• Citizenship is a legal status and OCI registration does not confer Indian citizenship.
• The Government possesses substantial statutory powers to regulate the presence of foreigners in India.
• The exercise of those powers remains subject to the Constitution, statutory limitations and applicable principles of administrative law.

There is also a significant earlier High Court decision involving a foreign national participating in political demonstrations. That judgment must be examined before arriving at any broad conclusion about the rights of OCI cardholders.

Case Details: Imran Khan Pal v. Union of India

Particulars	Details
Court	Bombay High Court
Case	Imran Khan Pal v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number	Writ Petition (L) No. 36271 of 2026
Bench	Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait M. Sethna
Proceeding Examined	2 November 2026
Previous Signed Order	27 October 2026
Next Hearing	7 December 2026

The question is not simply whether OCI cardholders are citizens. They are not. The more difficult question is what protections the Constitution and Indian law continue to provide to them.

1. The Facts: How Did the Imran Khan Controversy Begin?

The immediate controversy originated in a protest held near August Kranti Maidan in Mumbai on 10 October 2026.

The demonstration was associated with demands for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in connection with the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

Actor Imran Khan was reportedly present at the demonstration and was detained by Mumbai Police.

Following the incident, BJP leader Kirit Somaiya lodged a complaint alleging violations of law and OCI-related conditions.

According to contemporary reporting, the police forwarded an FIR to the immigration authorities. The FRRO subsequently issued a Leave India Notice on 14 October 2026.

The notice directed Khan to leave India by 28 October 2026.

Khan approached the Bombay High Court, questioning the legality of the notice and seeking protection against its implementation.

His case reportedly challenged the manner in which the immigration authorities exercised their powers. In particular, he questioned the absence of a prior opportunity to respond and the legal basis for directing him to leave India.

He also relied on his long-standing connection with India, submitting through counsel that, apart from approximately two years in the United States where he was born, he had spent his life in India.

It is important to distinguish between allegations made in a complaint, the petitioner’s submissions and findings recorded by a court. The allegations concerning his participation and any violation of law must not be treated as established merely because an FIR or administrative notice exists.

The Procedural Chronology

Date	Development
10 October 2026	Protest concerning SIR held in Mumbai; Khan was reportedly detained.
14 October 2026	FRRO issued the Leave India Notice.
17 October 2026	Separate OCI cancellation show-cause proceedings were reportedly initiated.
27 October 2026	Bombay High Court kept the Leave India Notice in abeyance until 2 November.
2 November 2026	Court made oral observations, considered the apology and undertaking, and continued interim protection.
7 December 2026	Next hearing as reported.

The signed order of 27 October is particularly important because it confirms that the Court had already suspended the operation of the notice pending further hearing.

The order records:

Imran Khan Pal v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (St.) No. 36271 of 2026, Bombay High Court, order dated 27 October 2026.

The direction was limited: the impugned Leave India Notice dated 14 October 2026 was to remain in abeyance until the adjourned hearing on 2 November.

It did not quash the notice or finally decide the petitioner’s constitutional arguments.

2. What Exactly Happened on 2 November 2026?

The hearing on 2 November is important because the Court addressed the legal position of OCI cardholders more directly.

The Division Bench reportedly questioned why Khan, being an American citizen holding OCI status, had participated in a demonstration concerning an Indian electoral revision exercise.

The Court emphasised that there is a fundamental difference between the rights of Indian citizens and those of OCI cardholders.

The Bench reportedly stated that an OCI cardholder cannot be treated at par with Indian citizens and cannot claim an unrestricted entitlement to participate in political activities in India.

It also drew an analogy with an Indian citizen participating in political demonstrations abroad.

The Court reportedly asked Khan to explain why he had attended the protest and whether he had any association with the organisers.

Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond, appearing for Khan, submitted that his client had no association with the organisers or protesters. He also stated that Khan had not been called for investigation or for recording his statement.

The Union Government, represented by Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, opposed the petition. The Government’s position was that an OCI cardholder enjoyed limited rights and that the Government possessed extensive powers over the presence of foreigners in India.

The Court, however, also questioned the procedural circumstances in which the Leave India Notice had been issued.

The Bench reportedly asked whether a person who had lived in India for over four decades and had no established antecedents of unlawful conduct should be directed to leave without first receiving an opportunity to explain the allegations.

The Court ultimately continued the interim protection and required that the FRRO give Khan an opportunity to respond before deciding the matter.

The Apology and Undertaking

The Court sought an unconditional apology or expression of regret and an undertaking concerning future participation in similar protests.

Khan subsequently furnished the undertaking and unconditional apology, as reported by LiveLaw and The Indian Express.

The significance of this development must be understood carefully.

The apology was tendered during an interim proceeding. It should not automatically be interpreted as an admission of a criminal offence, a final finding that the petitioner had violated immigration law, or a judicial declaration that all political expression by OCI cardholders is prohibited.

Nor does an undertaking furnished by one litigant automatically become a general rule binding on every other OCI cardholder.

The exact terms and legal consequences of the undertaking must be examined from the signed order and the document actually filed by the petitioner.

Most importantly, the Court has not yet delivered a final reasoned judgement deciding the entire constitutional controversy.

3. The First Legal Principle: OCI Is Not Dual Citizenship

The starting point must be the Citizenship Act, 1955.

The Overseas Citizen of India scheme was introduced to provide certain statutory privileges to eligible persons of Indian origin who hold foreign citizenship.

It was never intended to create dual citizenship in the constitutional sense.

The relevant statutory provisions are:

• Section 7A: Provides for registration as an Overseas Citizen of India cardholder.
• Section 7B: Specifies the rights that may be conferred upon such cardholders by the Central Government through notification.

The Ministry of External Affairs expressly clarifies that OCI is not dual citizenship and does not confer political rights.

The Legal Status of an OCI Cardholder

This distinction is important.

An OCI cardholder:

• Remains a foreign national.
• Holds a foreign passport.
• Does not acquire an Indian passport merely by obtaining OCI registration.
• Does not acquire voting rights in Indian elections.
• Cannot claim eligibility for the constitutional offices and political positions excluded by Section 7B.
• Enjoys specified statutory privileges, including a multiple-entry lifelong visa, subject to applicable conditions.

The Significance of the 4 March 2021 Notification

The 4 March 2021 notification, S.O. 1050(E), issued under Section 7B(1), is particularly relevant.

It provides the specified benefits available to OCI cardholders and expressly states that an OCI cardholder is a foreign national holding a foreign passport and is not an Indian citizen.

The statutory distinction is therefore beyond dispute.

Does an OCI Cardholder Have Constitutional Protection?

However, there is an important question that follows: does the absence of Indian citizenship mean that an OCI cardholder has no constitutional protection when expressing an opinion about Indian public affairs?

The answer cannot be found merely by reading Section 7B. It requires an examination of the Constitution and judicial precedents.

4. Section 7B of the Citizenship Act: What Rights Are Actually Excluded?

Section 7B(1) authorises the Central Government to specify the rights available to OCI cardholders through notifications.

Section 7B(2) expressly excludes several rights conferred upon Indian citizens.

Rights Excluded Under Section 7B

These include:

• Equality of opportunity in public employment under Article 16.
• Eligibility for election as President under Article 58.
• Eligibility for election as Vice-President under Article 66.
• Eligibility for appointment as a Supreme Court judge under Article 124.
• Eligibility for appointment as a High Court judge under Article 217.
• Registration as a voter under Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
• Eligibility to become a member of Parliament.
• Eligibility to become a member of a State Legislature.
• Appointment to public services, subject to the statutory exception for specified appointments.

An Important Interpretative Point

There is an important interpretative point here.

Section 7B expressly excludes certain political and constitutional entitlements. It does not itself contain a general sentence stating that every form of political discussion, expression or peaceful gathering by an OCI cardholder is prohibited.

One must therefore distinguish between:

• The right to vote.
• The right to contest elections.
• The right to hold constitutional office.
• The right to organise or participate in political activity.
• The ability to express an opinion on public policy.
• Conduct that may violate a valid immigration condition or another applicable law.

These are not necessarily identical legal questions.

A prohibition on voting cannot automatically be converted into a prohibition on every conversation about an election.

Similarly, the absence of a citizen’s fundamental right under Article 19 does not mean that a foreign national is outside the protection of the entire Constitution.

5. The Most Important Constitutional Distinction: Articles 19, 14 and 21

The constitutional position of foreign nationals must be understood through the language of the Constitution itself.

Article 19: Rights Available to Citizens

Article 19 begins with the words:

“All citizens shall have the right…”

It guarantees, among other things:

• Freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
• Freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms under Article 19(1)(b).
• Freedom to form associations under Article 19(1)(c).
• Freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d).
• Freedom to reside and settle in India under Article 19(1)(e).
• Freedom to practise a profession or carry on an occupation under Article 19(1)(g).

These are citizen-specific fundamental rights.

An OCI cardholder cannot claim them as an Indian citizen.

This is a settled constitutional position.

Article 14: Equality Before the Law

Article 14 is differently worded.

It guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to “any person”.

The expression is wider than the word “citizen”.

Consequently, a foreign national cannot be subjected to arbitrary State action merely because he or she does not hold Indian citizenship.

The Government may make legally permissible distinctions between citizens and foreigners. But such distinctions must operate within the constitutional and statutory framework.

Article 21: Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 states:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

Again, the provision protects every person, not merely Indian citizens.

This means that an OCI cardholder retains the protection of Article 21 while present in India.

However, Article 21 does not give a foreign national an unconditional right to enter, remain in or settle permanently in India.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised this distinction.

Constitutional Protection Available to OCI Cardholders

The constitutional position can therefore be summarised as follows:

Constitutional Provision	OCI Cardholder’s Position
Article 14	Protection available to persons.
Article 19	Citizen-specific freedoms are not available on the same footing.
Article 20	Protection available to persons accused of offences.
Article 21	Protection available to persons.
Article 22	Applicable protections, subject to the constitutional provisions and exceptions.

Why This Constitutional Distinction Matters

The distinction is essential to understanding the Bombay High Court proceedings.

An OCI cardholder cannot claim the same political rights as an Indian citizen. But the Government must still act according to law when dealing with that individual.

6. The Supreme Court Precedents: What Has the Supreme Court Already Decided?

The present controversy must be examined against the background of Supreme Court decisions concerning foreign nationals, immigration powers and personal liberty.

A. Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta

Citation: AIR 1955 SC 367; (1955) 1 SCR 1284.

This is one of the foundational Supreme Court decisions concerning the power of the Indian Government to expel foreigners.

The petitioner, Hans Muller, was a West German national who had been detained with a view to making arrangements for his expulsion from India.

The principal issue concerned the Government’s authority to regulate and expel foreign nationals.

The Supreme Court recognised that the Central Government possesses statutory authority to expel foreigners under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

The Court also drew attention to the constitutional distinction between citizens and foreigners.

Article 19 guarantees certain freedoms to citizens. Foreign nationals cannot claim the same rights to move freely throughout India or to reside and settle in the country.

The decision established an important principle: a foreign national cannot insist upon a permanent right to remain in India merely because he or she has entered the country lawfully.

Relevance to Imran Khan’s Case

The Government’s argument that it possesses substantial authority over the continued presence of foreigners in India finds support in this precedent.

However, the case must be read in its statutory and factual context.

The 1946 Act has since been repealed and replaced by the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.

The new legislation must therefore be examined for the precise source and limits of the power being exercised.

B. Louis De Raedt v. Union of India

Citation: (1991) 3 SCC 554; AIR 1991 SC 1886.

This is arguably the most important Supreme Court precedent for the present controversy.

The petitioners were foreign nationals who had lived in India for several decades.

They challenged Government orders directing them to leave India after their requests for further extensions of stay and naturalisation had been rejected.

The petitioners relied upon their long residence and argued that their constitutional rights had been violated.

The Supreme Court considered the relationship between Articles 19 and 21 and the Government’s authority to expel foreigners.

The Court held that foreigners enjoy the protection of Article 21 but cannot claim the citizen-specific right to reside and settle in India under Article 19(1)(e).

It also recognised the Government’s broad power to expel foreign nationals.

However, the judgment contains an important qualification concerning natural justice.

The Court observed that there could not be a rigid, universal rule governing the precise manner in which an opportunity to present one’s case must be afforded.

The absence of a prior hearing in that particular case did not invalidate the order because the petitioners had not demonstrated what relevant material they could have produced had a prior notice been given.

Why This Judgment Matters

The case has two implications.

• First, long residence in India does not automatically create Indian citizenship or an unrestricted right to remain.
• Second, the question of a hearing must be assessed in the circumstances of the particular case.

The judgment does not establish that every foreigner must invariably receive a full prior oral hearing before any immigration direction is issued.

Equally, it should not be interpreted as authorising every administrative decision without reasons or procedural scrutiny.

The statutory framework and the facts remain important.

C. National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

Citation: (1996) 1 SCC 742; AIR 1996 SC 1234.

This judgment is important because it demonstrates that foreigners are not outside the protective reach of the Constitution.

The case concerned the Chakma community in Arunachal Pradesh.

The Supreme Court examined threats to their life and liberty and the State’s obligation to protect them.

The Court recognised that Article 21 applies to all persons, including foreigners.

It directed the State authorities to protect the life and liberty of the Chakmas and prevent their forcible eviction through unlawful means.

Relevance to OCI Cardholders

The judgment reinforces the proposition that a foreign national cannot be deprived of constitutional protection merely because of nationality.

The State may regulate the presence of foreigners, but the protection of life and personal liberty remains a constitutional obligation.

D. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

Citation: (1978) 1 SCC 248; AIR 1978 SC 597.

This landmark decision transformed the interpretation of Article 21.

The Supreme Court held that the procedure prescribed by law affecting personal liberty cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable.

The decision established a broader relationship between Articles 14, 19 and 21.

Although the judgment concerned an Indian citizen, its interpretation of Article 21 is relevant when examining State action affecting any person’s personal liberty.

The principle is not that every foreign national acquires Article 19 rights through Article 21.

Rather, the procedure by which personal liberty is affected must satisfy the applicable constitutional requirements.

This distinction becomes particularly important in immigration matters.

E. Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam

Citation: AIR 1967 SC 1836; (1967) 3 SCR 525.

This decision recognised the constitutional significance of personal liberty in relation to international travel and passports.

The Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty under Article 21, although the citizen-specific right to freedom of movement within India is separately guaranteed under Article 19.

Its relevance here is indirect but important: constitutional liberty and citizenship-based movement rights must not be confused.

7. The Most Significant Contrary Precedent: Kamil Siedczynski v. Union of India

Citation: W.P. No. 4432(W) of 2020, Calcutta High Court, decided on 18 March 2020.

Any serious legal analysis of the Imran Khan proceedings must examine this judgment.

It is perhaps the closest factual comparison available.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Kamil Siedczynski, was a Polish national studying in India on a valid student visa.

He had an academic background in Oriental Studies and knowledge of Indian languages and literature.

The Government sought to expel him after he allegedly participated in political demonstrations against a law enacted by Parliament.

The Government’s position was that his student visa did not permit participation in anti-government demonstrations.

The petitioner challenged the expulsion order.

What Did the Calcutta High Court Decide?

The Calcutta High Court examined the Government’s material, the absence of reasons in the expulsion order and the failure to provide an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya held that the Government’s discretion could not be exercised in an arbitrary manner.

The Court observed that the constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 21 extend to foreigners present in India.

The Court also considered whether mere participation in political rallies could justify expulsion.

It held, on the facts before it, that the alleged participation did not establish a sufficient legal ground for the expulsion order.

The Court set aside the impugned expulsion order.

Why Is This Judgment Important?

The factual similarity is striking.

Comparison Between Kamil Siedczynski and Imran Khan

Kamil Siedczynski	Imran Khan
Polish citizen	US citizen
Student visa holder	OCI cardholder
Participated in political demonstrations	Allegedly participated in an SIR-related protest
Expulsion order challenged	Leave India Notice challenged
Lack of prior opportunity to respond was considered	Absence of prior opportunity to respond was raised
Expulsion order set aside	Interim protection continued; final merits pending

The Critical Legal Distinction

There is, however, a critical legal distinction.

Kamil Siedczynski was a single-judge decision of the Calcutta High Court. It is not binding on the Bombay High Court in the same way as a Supreme Court judgment.

Moreover, the petitioner held a student visa, whereas Khan holds OCI registration and is subject to the separate statutory conditions governing OCI cardholders.

The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 also replaced the earlier Foreigners Act, 1946.

Therefore, the statutory setting is not identical.

Nevertheless, the reasoning in Kamil Siedczynski deserves serious consideration.

The Difficult Legal Question Raised by This Judgment

It raises a difficult question:

If mere participation in a political demonstration by a foreign national is not, by itself, sufficient to establish a lawful ground for expulsion, what additional statutory or factual basis must the Government establish in a case involving an OCI cardholder?

The Bombay High Court may have to examine this question in light of the new legislation and the separate OCI framework.

It would be legally incorrect to ignore the judgment merely because it does not favour the Government’s position.

8. Does the Law Specifically Prohibit OCI Cardholders from Participating in Political Protests?

This is the central interpretative question.

The Citizenship Act clearly excludes several political rights from OCI cardholders.

However, neither Section 7A nor Section 7B, by itself, contains an express blanket prohibition against every form of peaceful political expression.

The 4 March 2021 Ministry of Home Affairs Notification

The 4 March 2021 Ministry of Home Affairs notification, S.O. 1050(E), is also relevant.

It specifies the benefits available to OCI cardholders, including lifelong multiple-entry visas and exemptions from registration, subject to specified conditions.

It requires special permission for certain activities, including research, missionary activities, mountaineering, journalism and specified foreign diplomatic or governmental engagements.

Importantly, the notification does not expressly list ordinary political protest participation as one of those special-permission activities.

Does This Mean Every Form of Political Activity Is Permitted?

This does not mean that every form of political activity is automatically permitted.

The relevant conduct may still be governed by the Immigration and Foreigners Act, the conditions applicable to the individual’s OCI status, other valid orders and any independently applicable criminal law.

But a distinction must be maintained between the absence of a citizen’s Article 19 entitlement and the existence of an express statutory prohibition.

The two propositions are not interchangeable.

The Government’s Strongest Argument

The Government may contend that OCI registration is a statutory privilege and that an OCI cardholder cannot claim the same political position as an Indian citizen.

It may also rely upon the conditions of the OCI scheme and the Government’s statutory power to regulate the conduct of foreigners.

Where the authorities establish a legally sustainable ground for removal, the fact that the individual has lived in India for many years cannot by itself defeat the statutory power.

The Contrary Interpretation

The petitioner’s side may argue that mere presence at a peaceful protest, without evidence of unlawful conduct or breach of a valid condition, cannot automatically justify removal.

The petitioner may also contend that criticism of government policy is not necessarily the same as disaffection towards the Constitution or a threat to national security.

This distinction is especially important because criticism of a particular government, institution or administrative decision is not automatically equivalent to disaffection towards the Constitution.

The Legal Question That Must Ultimately Be Decided

The legal question must be decided by examining the actual conduct and the applicable statutory provision.

9. Section 7D of the Citizenship Act: Can OCI Registration Be Cancelled?

Section 7D is particularly important because the FRRO reportedly initiated separate proceedings concerning possible cancellation of Khan’s OCI registration.

The Central Government may cancel OCI registration on specified statutory grounds.

These include:

• Registration obtained through fraud or false representation.
• Concealment of material facts.
• Showing disaffection towards the Constitution as by law established.
• Certain activities during wartime involving assistance to an enemy.
• Specified criminal convictions.
• Violation of the Citizenship Act or other laws specified by Central Government notification.
• Necessity in the interests of sovereignty and integrity, security, friendly relations with foreign countries or the general public.
• Certain circumstances involving the dissolution or subsistence of a marriage in cases covered by the statutory provision.

The Importance of a Reasonable Opportunity of Being Heard

The proviso to Section 7D is especially important.

It states that no cancellation order shall be passed unless the OCI cardholder has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

This is a statutory safeguard.

It prevents cancellation merely through an unexplained administrative decision without following the procedure prescribed by Parliament.

Section 7D Cancellation vs Leave India Notice: Understanding the Legal Difference

However, Section 7D must not be confused with a Leave India Notice.

The two actions have different legal consequences.

Legal Action	Purpose	Legal Consequence
Leave India Notice	Concerns the person’s continued presence in India.	Requires the person to leave India in accordance with the applicable direction.
Cancellation under Section 7D	Concerns the person’s OCI registration.	May result in cancellation of OCI registration.

The Government may initiate separate proceedings under the respective statutory provisions, but the legal requirements applicable to each action must be independently satisfied.

Does Disagreement with the Government Amount to Disaffection Towards the Constitution?

There is another important point.

The expression “disaffection towards the Constitution” cannot simply be equated with disagreement with the Government of the day.

A constitutional democracy necessarily permits disagreement with governmental policies and public institutions.

Whether particular conduct satisfies the statutory ground requires a proper examination of its meaning, evidence and legal context.

The Government cannot establish that ground merely by attaching a label to criticism.

10. The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025: The Government’s Power to Remove Foreign Nationals

The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 (Act No. 13 of 2025) came into force on 1 September 2025.

It consolidated the principal legislative framework governing immigration and the regulation of foreigners.

Two provisions are central to the present controversy.

Section 7: Power to Issue Orders, Directions or Instructions

Section 7(1) empowers the Central Government to issue orders, directions or instructions regulating or restricting the entry, departure, presence or continued presence of foreigners in India.

Section 7(2)(c) specifically contemplates a direction that a foreigner shall not remain in India or in a specified area.

Other clauses permit the Government to regulate movement, residence and conduct in specified circumstances.

The statutory wording is broad.

However, the fact that the power is broad does not eliminate the need to identify the relevant legal basis and comply with the Act.

Section 29: Power of Removal

Section 29 provides that the Central Government may, by general or special order, direct the removal of a foreigner from India for:

• Contravention of any provision of the Act.
• Contravention of any rule or order made under the Act.
• An adverse security report.

This is the statutory provision concerning removal.

Section 7 vs Section 29: Understanding the Difference

It is important to read Section 7 and Section 29 together rather than treating them as interchangeable.

Provision	Scope of Government Power
Section 7	Provides the framework for orders regulating the presence of foreigners.
Section 29	Specifically deals with removal on the grounds mentioned in that section.

A Leave India Notice must therefore be examined to determine the precise provision invoked, the legal nature of the direction and the factual basis relied upon.

The central question is whether the alleged conduct is connected to a legally sustainable ground under the legislation.

Mere reliance upon the general powers of the Government should not end the legal inquiry.

11. Natural Justice: Does a Foreign National Have a Right to Be Heard Before Removal?

The principle of natural justice is central to Khan’s challenge.

The Latin expression audi alteram partem means that the other side must be heard.

It is a fundamental principle of administrative law.

However, the legal position concerning foreign nationals is more nuanced than a simple assertion that every removal order must always be preceded by a full hearing.

Also Read: Anticipatory Bail Rejected by High Court? What to Do Next Under Section 482 BNSS

Louis De Raedt v. Union of India: Supreme Court’s Approach to Natural Justice

The Supreme Court in Louis De Raedt v. Union of India recognised that there is no universal, rigid formula governing the manner in which an opportunity to present one’s case must be provided.

The circumstances of the individual case matter.

The Court did not invalidate the removal action merely because a prior notice had not been served.

Kamil Siedczynski: Calcutta High Court on Procedural Fairness

The Calcutta High Court in Kamil Siedczynski, on the other hand, set aside the expulsion order because of the absence of reasons and the failure to provide an opportunity to respond in the circumstances before it.

What Is the Correct Legal Position on Natural Justice for Foreign Nationals?

These decisions must be read together.

The legal position is not that the Government is powerless to remove foreigners.

Nor is it that every foreigner can insist upon a hearing regardless of the statutory context.

The correct position is that the authority must exercise its powers in accordance with the governing statute and the applicable requirements of fairness.

What Should the FRRO Examine Before Taking a Final Decision?

Before taking a final decision, the FRRO should consider:

• The exact allegations made against the individual.
• The material supporting those allegations.
• Whether the alleged conduct actually constitutes a contravention of the relevant law or order.
• Whether the individual was personally involved or merely present.
• Whether the relevant statutory power has been properly invoked.
• Whether the procedure followed satisfies the applicable requirements of natural justice.
• Whether relevant explanations and evidence have been considered.

These are matters of administrative decision-making, not merely formalities.

The Court’s reported direction to give Khan an opportunity to respond before the FRRO decides the matter is therefore significant.

12. The Government’s Position Versus the Petitioner’s Position

A balanced legal analysis must consider both sides.

The Government’s Case

The Union Government’s position, as reported, rests on the following propositions:

• Khan is an American citizen, not an Indian citizen.
• OCI registration does not confer political rights equivalent to citizenship.
• Article 19 rights are available only to Indian citizens.
• The Government has extensive statutory powers to regulate the presence of foreigners.
• A foreign national cannot claim an unrestricted right to remain in India.
• The petitioner’s conduct must be considered in the context of the OCI scheme and immigration law.

The Supreme Court decisions in Hans Muller and Louis De Raedt provide important support for the Government’s position concerning the power to regulate and remove foreigners.

The Petitioner’s Case

The petitioner’s position, as reported, raises different considerations:

• He has lived in India for almost his entire life.
• He holds OCI registration and has maintained longstanding connections with India.
• The Leave India Notice was issued without a prior opportunity to respond.
• His presence at the demonstration does not, by itself, establish an immigration violation.
• The authorities must identify the statutory basis for removal.
• The decision must be supported by relevant material and comply with the applicable procedure.

The decision in Kamil Siedczynski provides a relevant persuasive precedent for examining the relationship between political participation, valid immigration status and procedural fairness.

The Competing Legal Principles: Government’s Position vs Petitioner’s Response

Government’s Position	Petitioner’s Legal Response
OCI is not citizenship.	This is accepted, but constitutional protections for persons remain.
Article 19 is citizen-specific.	Article 14 and Article 21 continue to apply.
Government has immigration powers.	Those powers must be exercised under the correct statutory provision.
Foreigners have no unrestricted right to remain.	The petitioner does not necessarily challenge the existence of removal powers, but their exercise in his particular case.
Participation in the protest is relevant.	Mere presence or participation must be distinguished from conduct that actually violates the law.
Long residence does not create citizenship.	Long residence may nevertheless be relevant to the circumstances and proportionality of administrative action.

What Will the Court Ultimately Consider?

The Court will ultimately have to consider these competing propositions in light of the complete record.

13. A Critical Examination: Does Criticising the Government Amount to Disaffection Towards the Constitution?

This question deserves particular attention.

Section 7D of the Citizenship Act recognises disaffection towards the Constitution as one of the grounds for cancellation of OCI registration.

But what exactly does disaffection towards the Constitution mean?

A distinction must be drawn between:

• Criticism of a government.
• Disagreement with a constitutional authority.
• Criticism of an election procedure.
• Peaceful political discussion.
• Advocacy of constitutional reform.
• Conduct directed against the constitutional order itself.

These are different matters.

A person may criticise the functioning of the Election Commission without necessarily expressing disaffection towards the Constitution.

Similarly, disagreement with a government policy cannot automatically be treated as hostility towards the constitutional framework.

The constitutional system recognises that governments and public institutions may be questioned and criticised.

However, an OCI cardholder cannot automatically claim the same Article 19 protection available to an Indian citizen.

The issue is therefore not resolved simply by invoking freedom of speech.

It requires examination of the statutory conditions governing OCI registration, the applicable immigration provisions and the actual nature of the conduct.

A distinction must also be maintained between an oral observation made during a hearing and a binding legal finding that criticism of an Indian institution necessarily constitutes disaffection towards the Constitution.

The latter proposition has not been finally established in Khan’s proceedings.

Also Read: File Legal Notice in India: Complete Guide to Drafting, Procedure, Cost & Legal Rights

14. Does Long Residence in India Give an OCI Cardholder a Special Right to Remain?

This question has particular relevance because Khan reportedly submitted that he had spent nearly his entire life in India.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Louis De Raedt is important here.

The petitioners in that case had lived in India for several decades.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that long residence did not automatically establish Indian citizenship or a fundamental right to remain permanently in India.

The legal position is therefore clear:

• Long residence does not convert OCI registration into citizenship.
• However, long residence may be relevant to the factual circumstances surrounding an administrative decision.

For instance, the authority may have to consider the person’s history of lawful residence, family circumstances, prior conduct and the specific grounds relied upon for removal, to the extent relevant under the governing law.

These considerations do not defeat the sovereign authority of the State.

But neither should they be dismissed as legally irrelevant without examining the circumstances.

Statutory Route to Indian Citizenship for OCI Cardholders

There is also a statutory route through which an OCI cardholder may apply for Indian citizenship.

Under Section 5(1)(g) of the Citizenship Act, an eligible OCI cardholder may apply for registration as an Indian citizen after satisfying the prescribed conditions, including the five-year OCI registration requirement and the applicable ordinary-residence requirement.

Such registration is not automatic. It requires an application and satisfaction of the statutory conditions.

15. What Is the Present Legal Position After the 2 November Proceedings?

As of 2 November 2026, the following position emerges from the available court record and contemporary reporting.

1. The Bombay High Court has not finally decided the legality of the Leave India Notice.
2. The Court has reportedly clarified that OCI cardholders cannot be treated at par with Indian citizens.
3. The Court made strong oral observations concerning Khan’s participation in the SIR-related protest.
4. Khan furnished an unconditional apology and an undertaking concerning future protest participation, according to the reported proceedings.
5. The operation of the Leave India Notice has been kept in abeyance until the FRRO decides the matter after giving Khan an opportunity to respond.
6. The next hearing is scheduled for 7 December 2026.
7. The separate OCI cancellation proceedings reportedly initiated under Section 7D must be distinguished from the present challenge to the Leave India Notice.

There is no verified final order quashing the notice, cancelling the OCI proceedings or conclusively determining the constitutional rights of OCI cardholders to participate in peaceful political demonstrations.

The next stage of the litigation may be significant because the FRRO’s decision and the reasons recorded by the authority will become important to the assessment of the original action.

16. What Legal Questions May Arise at the Next Stage?

Several questions deserve judicial consideration.

1. Whether Participation in a Peaceful Demonstration Is, by Itself, Sufficient to Justify Removal of an OCI Cardholder

The answer will depend on the applicable statutory provisions and the evidence concerning the actual conduct.

2. Whether the FRRO Correctly Invoked Sections 7 and 29 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025

The authority must act within the scope of the statutory power.

3. Whether a Prior Opportunity to Respond Was Necessary

The issue must be examined in light of Louis De Raedt, the applicable statute and the facts of the case.

4. Whether the Alleged Conduct Can Independently Justify Action Under Section 7D of the Citizenship Act

This requires a separate examination of the grounds for OCI cancellation.

5. Whether the Distinction Between Criticism of the Government and Disaffection Towards the Constitution Has Been Properly Maintained

This is particularly important because the statutory language should not be interpreted in a manner that automatically equates disagreement with the Government with hostility towards the Constitution.

6. What Legal Significance Should Be Attached to the Petitioner’s Long-Standing Residence and Personal Connections with India?

Such factors do not create citizenship but may be relevant to the administrative assessment, where the law permits their consideration.

17. My Legal Assessment: Citizenship Is Not a Matter of Sentiment, But Neither Is Sovereign Power Beyond Judicial Review

The Imran Khan proceedings raise an important legal issue that deserves a measured examination.

There can be little disagreement with the proposition that OCI registration does not confer Indian citizenship.

An OCI cardholder cannot claim voting rights, contest elections or demand the full political privileges enjoyed by Indian citizens.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised the distinction between citizens and foreigners.

The Government also possesses substantial statutory authority to regulate the continued presence of foreign nationals in India.

However, the legal analysis cannot end there.

The Constitution does not cease to protect a person merely because that person holds a foreign passport.

Articles 14 and 21 remain important safeguards.

The Government must identify the statutory basis for its action and exercise the relevant power within the limits prescribed by law.

The earlier decision in Kamil Siedczynski illustrates why the distinction between political participation and an established ground for expulsion matters.

At the same time, that judgment cannot override the Supreme Court’s binding decisions concerning the Government’s authority over foreigners.

The proper approach is to reconcile the statutory power of the Government with the constitutional protection of personal liberty and the applicable principles of administrative law.

The Legal Difference Between Oral Observations and a Binding Judicial Decision

There is another important consideration.

A court’s oral observations during a hearing may be significant, particularly when they indicate the Bench’s concerns. But oral observations are not automatically the ratio decidendi of a final judgment.

The operative order, the reasons recorded in it and the final adjudication must be examined before declaring that a new legal principle has been established.

In the present case, the reported observations concerning OCI cardholders and political protests are undoubtedly significant.

But they should not be converted into a blanket rule that an OCI cardholder is prohibited from every form of criticism, public discussion or peaceful political expression.

That proposition requires a proper statutory and constitutional foundation.

Conclusion: OCI Status, Constitutional Protection and Government Authority

The legal principle emerging from the controversy is that OCI status cannot be equated with Indian citizenship.

The privileges of OCI registration are statutory privileges. They do not confer the full political rights of citizens or an unconditional right to remain permanently in India.

At the same time, the exercise of immigration powers must remain within the framework of the Constitution and the legislation enacted by Parliament.

The Bombay High Court proceedings are important because they bring these two considerations into direct contact.

The Government’s authority over foreigners is substantial. The individual’s constitutional protection is not extinguished.

Ultimately, the question before the Court is not simply whether an OCI cardholder is entitled to participate in an Indian political protest.

It is whether the particular conduct, considered under the applicable statutory provisions and supported by relevant material, can lawfully justify the immigration action taken against that individual.

An OCI card is not Indian citizenship. But the absence of citizenship does not mean the absence of law, constitutional protection or judicial accountability.

That is the distinction that should guide any serious examination of this case.

Facing an OCI Cancellation Notice or Immigration Dispute in India? Understand Your Legal Rights Before Taking the Next Step.

An OCI card may provide valuable privileges, but it does not confer Indian citizenship. Equally, any action by immigration authorities must be examined against the applicable statutory provisions and constitutional safeguards.

Do not leave an important legal question unanswered or risk taking a decision without understanding its consequences.

Whether you are facing an OCI Card Cancellation Notice, Leave India Notice, FRRO proceedings, immigration restrictions or a dispute concerning your constitutional rights in India, obtaining proper legal guidance at the right stage can make a meaningful difference.

Consult Adv. Tarun Choudhury, Supreme Court Advocate with over 25 years of legal experience, for professional legal guidance concerning citizenship, OCI status, immigration disputes and constitutional remedies.

Seek Experienced Legal Guidance

⚖️ Adv. Tarun Choudhury

Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years of Legal Experience

• 📞 Call: 9650499965
• 💬 WhatsApp: 8851978611
• ✉️ Email: admin@legalserviceindia.com
• 🌐 Website: https://www.legalserviceindia.com

Your legal status deserves careful attention. Understand your rights, examine your options and take your next step with informed legal guidance.

Case Citations and Primary Legal Authorities

A. Bombay High Court Proceedings

• Imran Khan Pal v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (St.) No. 36271 of 2026, Bombay High Court, order dated 27 October 2026.

The 2 November 2026 proceedings are presently supported by contemporary legal reporting. A signed, reasoned order for that date has not been independently verified.

B. Supreme Court Judgments

1. Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta, AIR 1955 SC 367; (1955) 1 SCR 1284.
2. Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, AIR 1967 SC 1836; (1967) 3 SCR 525.
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248; AIR 1978 SC 597.
4. Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 554; AIR 1991 SC 1886.
5. National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 1 SCC 742; AIR 1996 SC 1234.

C. Relevant High Court Judgment

• Kamil Siedczynski v. Union of India & Anr., W.P. No. 4432(W) of 2020, Calcutta High Court, decided on 18 March 2020.

D. Statutory Provisions

The following constitutional provisions, statutory provisions and government notifications are relevant to the legal issues discussed in this article:

Legislation / Authority	Relevant Provisions
Constitution of India	Articles 14, 19, 20, 21 and 22.
Citizenship Act, 1955	Sections 7A, 7B and 7D.
Citizenship Act, 1955	Section 5(1)(g).
Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025	Sections 6, 7, 16, 27, 28, 29 and 36, as relevant.
Representation of the People Act, 1950	Section 16.
Representation of the People Act, 1951	Sections 3, 4, 5, 5A and 6.
Ministry of Home Affairs Notification	S.O. 1050(E), dated 4 March 2021.

E. Primary-Source Links

• Citizenship Act, 1955 – India Code
• Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 – India Code
• OCI Notification S.O. 1050(E), 4 March 2021 – Ministry of Home Affairs
• Overseas Citizenship of India Scheme – Ministry of External Affairs
• Hans Muller – Supreme Court judgment
• Louis De Raedt – Supreme Court judgment
• NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh – Supreme Court judgment
• Kamil Siedczynski – Calcutta High Court judgment
• Imran Khan Pal – Bombay High Court order dated 27 October 2026
• LiveLaw – Proceedings dated 2 November 2026
• The Indian Express – Proceedings dated 2 November 2026

5 SEO-Friendly Frequently Asked Questions

These FAQs are designed to target search queries relating to OCI cardholders, political protests in India, OCI cancellation, Leave India Notices, and the legal rights of Overseas Citizens of India.

1. Can an OCI Cardholder Participate in Political Protests or Demonstrations in India?

An Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder is a foreign national and does not enjoy the same political rights as an Indian citizen. Under Section 7B of the Citizenship Act, 1955, OCI cardholders are not entitled to certain political and constitutional rights reserved for Indian citizens.

However, this does not automatically mean that every form of peaceful expression or participation in a public gathering is prohibited. The legality of the conduct must be examined in light of applicable OCI conditions, immigration laws and the facts of the particular case.

2. Can the Indian Government Cancel an OCI Card for Participating in a Protest Against the Government?

The Central Government has powers under Section 7D of the Citizenship Act, 1955, to cancel OCI registration on specified statutory grounds.

However, participation in a protest or criticism of the Government should not automatically be treated as sufficient grounds for cancellation. The authorities must establish a legally recognised ground and follow the applicable procedure, including the opportunity of being heard where required by law.

3. Does an OCI Cardholder Have Freedom of Speech and Expression in India?

OCI cardholders are not Indian citizens and therefore cannot claim Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression to citizens.

Nevertheless, foreigners, including OCI cardholders, enjoy constitutional protection under Article 21 and the protection of Article 14. The distinction between political rights reserved for citizens and the fundamental protections available to all persons is important when examining restrictions on an OCI cardholder’s activities in India.

4. Can an OCI Cardholder Challenge a Leave India Notice Issued by the FRRO?

Yes. An OCI cardholder may challenge a Leave India Notice or an immigration-related direction before the appropriate court if there are legally sustainable grounds, such as violation of statutory provisions, procedural unfairness, arbitrariness or infringement of applicable constitutional protections.

The court will examine the relevant facts, the legal authority relied upon by the Government and the procedure followed by the immigration authorities. The outcome depends on the circumstances of each case.

5. What Is the Difference Between OCI Card Cancellation and Deportation from India?

OCI card cancellation and removal from India are two legally distinct actions.

Cancellation under Section 7D of the Citizenship Act, 1955, concerns the withdrawal of OCI registration on specified statutory grounds.

Removal from India concerns immigration and the authority of the Government to require a foreign national to leave the country under applicable immigration legislation, including the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.

A person may therefore face immigration proceedings independently of the question of whether their OCI registration should be cancelled.

Key Takeaways: OCI Cardholders, Political Protests and Legal Rights in India

The following key takeaways summarise the important legal principles governing OCI cardholders, political participation, constitutional protections and immigration proceedings in India.

1. OCI Cardholders Are Not Indian Citizens: An Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card provides specific residency and other statutory benefits but does not confer Indian citizenship or the full political rights enjoyed by Indian citizens.
2. Political Rights Are Restricted: Section 7B of the Citizenship Act, 1955, excludes OCI cardholders from certain political and constitutional rights reserved for Indian citizens. However, this does not automatically prohibit every form of peaceful expression or public participation.
3. Freedom of Speech Has Constitutional Limits: OCI cardholders cannot claim the citizen-specific protection of Article 19(1)(a). Nevertheless, Article 14 and Article 21 protect all persons, including foreign nationals, subject to the applicable law.
4. OCI Cancellation Must Have a Legal Basis: Under Section 7D of the Citizenship Act, 1955, the Government may cancel OCI registration on specified statutory grounds. Mere criticism of the Government should not automatically be equated with conduct warranting cancellation.
5. Leave India Notices Can Be Legally Challenged: An OCI cardholder may approach the appropriate court to challenge an FRRO Leave India Notice where there are sustainable grounds involving statutory violations, arbitrariness, procedural unfairness or constitutional protections.
6. OCI Cancellation and Deportation Are Different Legal Processes: Cancellation of OCI registration under the Citizenship Act and removal of a foreign national under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, are legally distinct actions and must be examined separately.
7. Foreign Nationals Are Protected by Article 21: The Supreme Court has recognised that foreigners enjoy the protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21, even though they do not possess all fundamental rights available exclusively to Indian citizens.
8. Courts Must Examine the Circumstances of Each Case: The legality of action against an OCI cardholder depends on the conduct alleged, the applicable statutory provisions, the evidence available and compliance with procedural safeguards.
9. The Imran Khan Proceedings Raise Important Constitutional Questions: The Bombay High Court proceedings highlight the distinction between political rights reserved for Indian citizens and the constitutional protections available to foreign nationals residing in India.
10. The Broader Legal Principle: Holding an OCI card does not make a person an Indian citizen, but neither does foreign nationality place that person outside the protection of India’s constitutional and legal framework.

Important Legal Clarification

The Bombay High Court proceedings discussed in this article should not be treated as a final judgment establishing a blanket prohibition on OCI cardholders participating in every political protest.

The reported oral observations must be distinguished from a signed, reasoned judicial ruling. The legal position must be assessed against the relevant statutes and binding judicial precedents.

This article is an independent legal analysis based on the available court record, statutory materials and reported proceedings. It is not a reproduction of a judicial judgment. The final outcome of the pending proceedings may affect the legal analysis.

Important Links

• Lawyers in India
• Copyright Registration in India
• Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
• Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi/NCR : WhatsApp 9650499965