Bombay HC’s message to Imran Khan is disquieting

The right to stand with others, to express concern and to question those in authority is part of the democratic habit. A confident democracy should enable, not curb, itProposals to impose curbs or restrictions on such outflows are a step backwards.

There is a contradiction in the way India regards its overseas community.

3 min readNov 4, 2026 06:05 AM IST First published on: Nov 4, 2026 at 06:05 AM IST

The Bombay High Court’s oral observations in the case involving actor Imran Khan are disappointing, they strike at the heart of what peaceful dissent represents in a democracy. The court’s insistence that an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder doesn’t have “any right to criticise the country”, and its demand that Khan furnish an unconditional apology and undertaking not to participate in future protests sends a dispiriting message and shrinks the space for civic participation. Khan was detained during a peaceful protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in Mumbai on October 10 and subsequently issued a Leave India Notice. The fact that he is an American citizen may distinguish his legal status from that of an Indian citizen, but an OCI card is not a visa, and its holders are not merely visitors passing through the country. They are people with enduring familial, professional and emotional ties to India, many of whom, like Khan, have spent substantial parts of their lives here. Their interest in India’s public life can hardly be termed incidental or viewed in terms of whether or not it affects them personally.

There is a contradiction in the way India regards its overseas community. Politicians routinely and fervently invoke the pravasi Indian as a valued stakeholder in the country’s economic, cultural and development story. Academics, researchers, scientists and professionals of Indian origin are encouraged to return, collaborate and contribute to the country with their investment, influence and expertise. The suggestion that an OCI cardholder cannot show solidarity on an issue of public concern creates an uneasy and contrived distinction between the diaspora as an asset and the diaspora as a voice. It sends a chilling signal to OCI academics and researchers who come home to work, teach, collaborate or simply reconnect — that their engagement is welcome only as long as their political convictions remain contained.

The Bombay High Court has a distinguished tradition of safeguarding civil liberties and expanding the boundaries of free speech. In fact, the Court itself questioned whether Khan had been given an opportunity to present his case before the issuing of the Leave India Notice. It is against this legacy that the present observations must be viewed. The right to stand with others, to express concern and to question those in authority is part of the democratic habit. A confident democracy should enable, not curb, it.