The Supreme Court of India recently affirmed the validity of detention orders issued under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act). The Special Leave Petitions challenged High Court of Karnataka judgments upholding detention orders against Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya and Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain. Petitions were filed by Priyanka Sarkariya (cousin of Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain) and H.P. Rohini (mother of Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya) against The Union of India & Anr. A bench of Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh dismissed both petitions.
Factual Background of Preventive Detention
The detention orders stemmed from intelligence received by the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Bengaluru, concerning gold smuggling. Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain was alleged to have facilitated the disposal of foreign-marked gold bars with Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya. An interception at Kempegowda International Airport led to recovery of 14.2 kg gold from Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya, followed by arrests. Detention orders under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act were issued on April 22, 2025, with grounds served to both detenus.
Key Contentions Raised by Petitioners
Petitioners, Priyanka Sarkariya and H.P. Rohini, raised several procedural challenges. These included claims of non-furnishing complete relied-upon documents (pen drive, Kannada pages, truncated documents), lack of subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority, absence of a live link for detention, and denial of legal assistance before the Advisory Board. Issues regarding delay in representation consideration were also raised.
Supreme Court's Legal Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the contentions within COFEPOSA and Article 22 of the Constitution. On legal assistance before the Advisory Board, the Court, citing A.K. Roy v. Union of India, reiterated: "The import of Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution can be seen on a reading of Section 8(e) of the COFEPOSA Act. A detenu cannot seek legal assistance as a matter of right." Such facility is only extended if the detaining authority uses legal representation. For the pen drive, the Court found substantial compliance: "Not only were the contents of the pen drive displayed to the detenus on a laptop in the prison, but endeavours were also made to supply the pen drive to the concerned representatives of the detenus." It further noted prison rules restricting detenu access to electronic gadgets and no renewed viewing requests. The Court concluded adequate reasons for subjective satisfaction were recorded, establishing a live and proximate link for detenu Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain. Representations were also duly considered by competent authorities. Finding adequate procedural compliance, the Supreme Court dismissed both Special Leave Petitions, upholding the detention orders.
