Choith Nanikram Harchandani v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (with Bittu Choith Harchandani v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
Background
Choith Nanikram Harchandani was detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), by an order of the Maharashtra Home Department dated 16 April 2015, to prevent him from smuggling goods. He filed a habeas corpus writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution directly before the Supreme Court challenging the detention. His son separately challenged the same detention order before the Bombay High Court, which dismissed that petition, leading to a connected special leave petition before the Supreme Court as well. Before the detaining authority's Advisory Board, the State had been represented by a legal practitioner while the detenu's request to be represented by counsel of his choice had effectively been denied.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that allowing the State to be represented by a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board while denying the detenu the same facility was a fatal procedural infirmity that rendered the detention order legally unsustainable, following the constitutional safeguards laid down in A.K. Roy's case. Having found this one ground sufficient to quash the order, the Court expressly declined to examine the other grounds raised by the petitioner. It also rejected the State's argument that the detenu's status as an alleged habitual offender should count against him, holding that a detention order cannot be upheld merely on that basis once a genuine procedural infirmity is established. The writ petition was accordingly allowed and the detention order dated 16 April 2015 was quashed by a writ of certiorari; as a consequence, the connected SLP (Crl.) No. 7010 of 2015 was disposed of as having become infructuous.
Lesson Learnt
When a person's personal liberty is at stake before a statutory Advisory Board reviewing a preventive detention order, fairness requires that if the State is allowed legal representation, the detenu must be allowed the same, denying this parity is, by itself, enough to invalidate the detention, regardless of the detenu's prior record.