Under the revised timeline, Khan will not be required to leave India until November 2, giving him temporary relief in the matter.
During the proceedings, advocate Sunil Kumar, appearing on behalf of advocate Subhash Jha, intervened and argued that the notice issued by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) falls under criminal jurisdiction. He contended that, under the existing allocation of judicial work, the bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh C. Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna could not hear Khan's civil petition.
Khan's senior advocate, V.R. Dhond, questioned the right of the party raising the objection to intervene in the matter. He argued that the Chief Justice, being the 'Master of Roster', had the authority to hear the case.
The bench said it wanted to hear the Central government's response to the objection. The proceedings were briefly put on hold to allow Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to join the hearing online from New Delhi.
However, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh subsequently requested that the hearing be adjourned so that the Solicitor General could participate. The court accepted the request and scheduled the next hearing for November 2.
The extension of the deadline means Khan has secured temporary relief from the directive to leave India while the legal proceedings continue.
The case stems from Khan's participation in protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, following which he received a notice directing him to leave the country. Khan is not an Indian citizen and holds American citizenship.
Following the notice issued by the Mumbai Police, Khan approached the Bombay High Court through his lawyer Zulfiqar Memon and his legal team, challenging the directive.
The notice had instructed him to leave India by October 28. However, with the hearing date extended before that deadline, Khan has now been granted relief until November 2.
The next hearing will determine the further course of proceedings in the case, including the Central government's response to the objection concerning the bench's jurisdiction.
About The Author
Comment List