Mumbai: CJP activist Abhijit Dipke on Thursday questioned what he described as a double standard in the treatment of American singer Mary Millben and Bollywood actor Imran Khan, comparing Millben’s support for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) with the restrictions faced by Khan, an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder.
In a post on X, Dipke wrote, “Mary Millben, an American, can speak in favour of the BJP. But Imran, an OCI cardholder, can’t say anything against the BJP.”
His remarks come amid a controversy over a ‘Leave India’ notice issued by Mumbai Police to Imran Khan, the nephew of Bollywood actor Aamir Khan. The notice reportedly directs the actor to leave India by October 28. Khan is said to hold an American passport and an OCI card.
The contrasting references to Millben and Khan have brought attention to questions surrounding the political activities of foreign nationals and OCI cardholders, as well as the restrictions governing their participation in public demonstrations.
Imran Khan receives ‘Leave India’ notice
The controversy followed Khan’s participation in a protest at Mumbai’s August Kranti Maidan, where demonstrators were demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
Khan was detained by police on Saturday while participating in the demonstration. According to the information provided, proceedings have been initiated against him under Sections 29 and 7 of the Immigration Act over allegations that he took part in the protest despite not being an Indian citizen.
The ‘Leave India’ notice reportedly requires him to leave the country by October 28. The action has drawn attention because of his OCI status and his participation in a demonstration involving political demands.
An OCI card allows eligible foreign citizens of Indian origin to live and travel in India under specified conditions, but it does not confer Indian citizenship. The precise legal provisions applicable to an individual’s participation in political activities depend on the relevant rules and circumstances.
Actor questions restrictions on freedom of movement
Following his detention, Khan shared a photograph on social media that appeared to show him sitting inside a police van.
“Apparently I’m going for a drive,” he wrote in the caption.
Speaking to reporters, the actor said he had attended the demonstration as a resident of Mumbai and was not there to pursue any specific demand. He questioned the restrictions on people’s freedom of movement and the suppression of their voices.
“I don’t have demands. I am here as a citizen, as a person who lives in this city. I am here to see why freedom of movement is being restricted. Why are people’s voices being suppressed? That is why I am here,” he said.
His comments framed his participation as an expression of concern about civil liberties rather than an attempt to advance a particular political demand.
The demonstration itself centred on calls for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar to resign. Khan’s participation subsequently became a separate issue, with attention shifting to his citizenship, OCI status and the conditions governing his stay in India.
Kirit Somaiya seeks arrest and deportation
The matter had also drawn criticism from BJP leader Kirit Somaiya, who called for Khan’s immediate arrest and deportation.
Somaiya alleged that Khan had violated the conditions governing his OCI status and visa rules by participating in the protest. He said he had submitted evidence to the police relating to the actor’s speeches at the demonstration and his earlier remarks.
The BJP leader accused Khan of misusing his OCI status to participate in what he described as an illegal political agitation.
Speaking to the media, Somaiya also accused the actor of displaying what he termed “political extremism”. He argued that Khan’s status as an American citizen holding an OCI card placed restrictions on the political activities in which he could participate.
These remain allegations made by Somaiya. The information provided does not establish that a final legal determination has been made regarding the claims against Khan.
Debate over political expression and OCI status
Dipke’s remarks have placed the controversy in a broader context by comparing the public political expression of Millben, an American singer known for her support for the BJP, with the action taken against Khan following his participation in a protest critical of a constitutional office-holder.
The comparison raises questions about how political expression by foreign nationals and OCI cardholders is treated in different circumstances. However, the two situations may involve different legal and factual considerations, and the available information does not establish that they are directly equivalent under Indian law.
OCI status is distinct from citizenship, and cardholders do not enjoy all the political rights available to Indian citizens. At the same time, the specific legal basis for action against an OCI cardholder must be assessed against the applicable statutory provisions and the facts of the case.
The immediate issue remains the notice directing Khan to leave India by October 28, along with the proceedings reportedly initiated over his participation in the Mumbai protest.
As the matter develops, the legal grounds for the action and any response from the authorities will be important in determining how the case proceeds.