Priyanka Sarkariyav.The Union of India & Anr.

1. The petitioners being aggrieved over the impugned judgments dated 19.12.2025 rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka upholding the Detention Orders dated 22.04.2025, issued in exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, ‘COFEPOSA Act’), are before us praying that the detenus - Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya in SLP (Criminal) No. 24/2026 and Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain in SLP (Civil) No. 1484/2026 be set at liberty.

2. Heard Mr. Amol B. Karande and Mr. T. Chezhiyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner - Priyanka Sarkariya in SLP (Civil) No. 1484/2026 and Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner - H.P. Rohini in SLP (Criminal) No. 24/2026 and the learned Additional Solicitor General of India (‘ASG’) appearing on behalf of the respondents. We have also perused the records and relevant documents necessary for the adjudication of the present Special Leave Petitions.

3. It is the specific case of the respondents that the detenu - Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain had facilitated the disposal of consignments of foreign-marked gold bars on four different occasions between 14.11.2024 and 14.02.2025, along with the other detenu - Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya.

4. Specific intelligence was received by the Department of Revenue Intelligence (‘DRI’), Bengaluru Zonal Unit that one female passenger bearing an Indian Passport was suspected of carrying gold, either in the form of gold bars or in the form of a paste, would be travelling from Dubai, United Arab Emirates to Bengaluru, India. Subsequently, an interception of the detenu - Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya was made on 03.03.2025, near the Green Channel of the International Customs Arrival Hall, Terminal 2 of the Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru. This was followed by the recovery of a huge quantity of gold amounting to 17 foreign-marked gold bars, weighing approximately 14.2 kilograms. On the next day, i.e., on 04.03.2025, the detenu – Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya was arrested, followed by the recording of her statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, ‘Customs Act’) on 10.03.2025, along with that of her associate Shri Tarun Konduru Raju on 12.03.2025.

5. Based on the statements given, the detenu - Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain was also arrested on 07.04.2025. This was preceded by the recording of his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act on 30.03.2025.

6. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, detention orders were passed on 22.04.2025 by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, DRI, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (‘CEIB’), COFEPOSA Wing. Further, the grounds of detention were served on the detenu - Smt. Harshvardhini Ranya on 22.04.2025, and the detenu - Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain on 23.04.2025. The grounds of detention, served on both the detenus, contain substantial particulars of the allegations, including the evidence recovered, running into several pages. Suffice it to state that earlier transactions involving both the detenus have been captured with adequate particulars in the grounds of detention.

7. Both the detenus have also been shown the contents of a pen drive containing the CCTV footage of the interception at the airport, in the prison, through a laptop brought for the said purpose by the concerned officials. Their signatures were obtained and due intimation was given to the counsel. Insofar as the detenu - Smt. Harshvardhini Ranya is concerned, on the failure of her counsel to receive the pen drive, it was furnished to her mother. Insofar as the detenu - Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain is concerned, an e-mail was sent to his family members, intimating that the pen drive may be received.

8. While the detenue - Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya made a representation to the Joint Secretary, COFEPOSA, Government of India on 05.05.2025, the detenue - Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain did not make any representation to the concerned authorities throughout, except for the one which was made after the disposal of the writ petition by the High Court vide one of the impugned judgments.

9. On 08.05.2025, the detenu - Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya made a further representation to the Government of India, CEIB. Further, on 09.05.2025, she made a representation before the Chairman of the Advisory Board seeking legal assistance to be represented during the proceedings before it.

10. The representations made by the detenue - Smt. Harshvardhini Ranya were duly considered by the Detaining Authority and the Government of India, CEIB and the rejection was, accordingly, communicated as well by way of the memoranda dated 13.05.2025 and 14.05.2025, respectively. However, the communications for both the rejections have been sent by the same officer, who is neither the Detaining Authority nor the Central Government. In other words, the decision to reject was made by the competent authorities, but the communications on the representations were sent by the same named official - Director, COFEPOSA.

11. The representation made by the detenue - Smt. Harshvardhini Ranya seeking legal assistance during the proceedings before the Advisory Board was also rejected. Both the detenus represented themselves virtually. The Advisory Board, upon perusing the records produced on behalf of the Detaining Authority, was pleased to opine that sufficient cause had been made out for the detention of the detenus and that they could be proceeded against further. The reports of the Advisory Board were accepted by the Central Government, thereby, confirming the Detention Orders qua both the detenus.

12. Aggrieved, writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Karnataka. The petitioner - H.P. Rohini in SLP (Criminal) No. 24/2024, being the mother of the detenu – Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya, raised various contentions, as listed below:

13. The petitioner - Priyanka Sarkariya, in SLP (Civil) No. 1484/2026, who is a cousin of the detenu – Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain raised the following contentions before the High Court:

14. Before us, Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in SLP (Criminal) No. 24/2026 and Mr. Amol B. Karande and Mr. T. Chezhiyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in SLP (Civil) No. 1484/2026 have raised some additional grounds laying particular emphasis on them, as against the grounds raised before the High Court.

15. We shall cumulatively narrate the submissions made before us by the learned Senior Counsel and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the detenus. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in SLP (Civil) No. 1484/2026, that the Detention Order passed on the basis of the alleged recovery of the foreign-marked gold bars is not connected to the detenu – Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain. There is neither a live-link, nor is the same proximate. Copies of the relied upon documents which were sought for, have not been furnished to the detenu. The representation to the Central Government, though made after the passing of the impugned order by the High Court, has not been considered. Further, merely supplying the pen drive to a third party would not tantamount to proper service in favour of the detenu. There is no substantial material to arrive at the conclusion that there is an imminent possibility of a similar offence of smuggling being committed upon the release of the detenu. Thus, the factum of alleged propensity to commit the offence of smuggling also has no factual basis.

16. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in SLP (Civil) No. 1484/2026 seeks to rely upon the following decisions in support of his submissions:

17. Shri R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in SLP (Criminal) No. 24/2026 has made the following submissions:

The rejection of the request for legal assistance by the Advisory Board to appear before it would vitiate the entire proceedings. There was a delay in considering and communicating the decision on the representation dated 05.05.2025. Both the representations have been considered by the same authority who is not competent, especially when there is no power of delegation available. Though a display of the video contained in the pen drive was made to the detenu in the laptop of the concerned department in the prison, no facility has been provided for further viewing of the contents. In other words, the pen drive containing the relied upon materials has not been supplied to the detenu. To buttress his submissions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the following decisions of this Court:

18. Learned ASG made the following submissions on behalf of the respondents: The High Court, while adjudicating the writ petitions, has considered all the contentions raised by the petitioners in extenso. Therefore, in the absence of any illegality, there is no need for any interference. The representations made by the detenu - Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya have been duly considered and decisions thereof have been communicated. The fact remains that one of the representations made by the detenu - Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain, after the disposal of the writ petition, was made to the incorrect authority. It is only after due intimation of the mistake committed that a subsequent representation was made by the detenu on 06.02.2026, which was also duly considered by the Detaining Authority, and its rejection was communicated vide a memorandum dated 23.02.2026. The receipt of the said communication is not in doubt, as could be seen from the additional documents filed by the petitioner – Priyanka Sarkariya herself. All the documents relied upon have been served upon the detenus or their representatives. Further, the representations have been considered within the permissible time limit. Not only was a pen drive provided, but also due display of the content therein, was made to the satisfaction of the detenus. The same has been acknowledged by them and, thereafter, they did not renew any such request for displaying the contents. The detenus were duly informed regarding the availability of the pen drives. It is incorrect to state that the officials/legal advisors of the respondents/Detaining Authority had participated in any hearing before the Advisory Board. They merely carried the records and assisted the Advisory Board, to peruse the same, as and when required. While there is no dispute regarding the law laid down in the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel and learned counsel for the petitioners, they do not have any application to the facts governing the present case.

Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India, 1950

Section 8(c) & (e) of the COFEPOSA Act

19. 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. The hearing provided under Section 8(c) of the COFEPOSA Act is meant for the detenu alone and, therefore, an officer representing the Detaining Authority has no other role while participating in the proceedings, except for producing the records. It is only when a hearing takes place where there is an active participation of the Detaining Authority, and that too with the leave of the Advisory Board, does the question of affording an opportunity of being heard through a legal practitioner arise qua the detenu. Any interpretation of the provision to the contrary would render Section 8(e) of the COFEPOSA Act otiose and redundant, especially, when it draws its source from the mandate provided under Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution.

20. In A.K. Roy v. Union of India and Others, (1982) 1 SCC 271 a Constitution Bench of this Court was pleased to hold as follows:

21. A thorough reading of the aforesaid decision would show that the Constitution Bench, after taking note of the constitutional mandate, was pleased to hold that a detenu has no right of being represented by the counsel in the proceedings before the Advisory Board. It is only when a Detaining Authority makes a representation before the Advisory Board through a legal practitioner, that the said facility has to be extended to a detenu as well. In other words, when an officer merely places the records and assists the Advisory Board on behalf of the Detaining Authority, a detenu cannot seek legal assistance in a routine manner. As stated above, such officials do not have any other role, other than merely assisting the Advisory Board to produce necessary records/documents. Thus, we are of the view that the decision rendered in A.K. Roy (supra) actually helps the case of the respondents, as it has been specifically averred by them that the concerned officers did not participate in the proceedings, except for assisting in production of the relevant records.

22. Shri R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel, has also placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in Choith Nanikram Harchandani v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2015) 17 SCC 688. In the said decision, this Court took note of the fact that the officials of the respondent, the Sponsoring Authority and the Detaining Authority were actually heard in the course of the proceedings before the Advisory Board. Thus, the aforesaid decision does not benefit the case of petitioner in SLP (Criminal) No. 24/2026, as the said decision is not applicable to the facts governing the instant case.

23. Reliance has been further placed upon a decision of this Court in Icchu Devi Choraria (supra) to contend that new grounds can be raised in a petition seeking the writ of habeas corpus, since strict rules of pleadings shall not be applicable.

24. While substantial reliance has been placed by the petitioners upon the decision in Icchu Devi (supra), to the effect that strict rules of pleadings and burden of proof shall not be applicable in a petition for habeas corpus, we have no difficulty in appreciating the fact that fresh grounds can be raised before us while challenging a Detention Order.

25. In the aforesaid decision, the relied upon documents were withheld completely. However, the facts governing the present case stand on a different footing, and even the fresh grounds raised before us do not come to the aid of the petitioners. We find that substantial compliance has been made on behalf of the respondent - authorities to establish that the Detention Order has not been issued in contravention to the constitutional mandate under Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution.

26. On the contentions made by the petitioners with respect to the non-supply of the pen drive, we find that substantial compliance has been made by the officials of the respondents. 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. When the prison rules, as such, do not facilitate a detenu/prisoner to have access to electronic gadgets, it cannot be said that the same should be made available to the detenus, more so, when no such requests were renewed by the detenus. Thus, we hold that the contention of non-supply of the pen-drive would amount to non-furnishing of the relied upon documents is nothing but an afterthought.

27. Reliance has also been placed by the learned Senior Counsel on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Smitha Gireesh vs Union of India & Ors, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3697, wherein, certain views have been expressed regarding furnishing of CDs/electronic records and providing mechanisms to view them.

28. Facts involved in the aforesaid case are different. Firstly, in that case, the documents relied upon were in relation to CDs containing CCTV footage, which had been shown at the time of recording the statement of the detenu therein, under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Secondly, display of the contents of the CDs was made to a co-accused, while it was denied to the detenu in the said case.

29. However, in the case at hand, the contents in the pen drive were displayed after the passing of the Detention Order and before making the representation before the respondent authorities. As stated above, the detenus did not renew their request for further display of the 90-minutes video footage pertaining to the interception incident at the Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru. Thus, the said decision of the High Court of Delhi also does not apply to the present case.

30. Though submissions have been made that the representations of the detenu - Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya were disposed of by the incorrect authority, that too, representing two different statutory authorities, the said submission also falls to the ground, as the signatory of the two memoranda rejecting the representations, merely communicated the decisions made by each concerned authority, namely, the Detaining Authority and the Government of India. In other words, it was not the decision of the signatory which was communicated to the detenu, but rather that of the concerned authority. To put it differently, what was done by the signatory was a mere ministerial act.

31. The submission that affidavits have not been filed by the concerned authorities cannot be sustained. The said contention has been raised to show that an incompetent authority has, in fact, disposed of the representation. The authority, who had attested the rejection of the representations, has filed an additional affidavit before this Court citing the procedure followed by the Detaining Authority and the Central Government while considering the representations as well as the administrative process relating to the manner in which the decisions were communicated to the detenu. The concerned official has also clearly stated that the representations dated 05.05.2025 and 08.05.2025 have been examined by the Detaining Authority, i.e. the Joint Secretary, COFEPOSA and the Director General, CEIB on behalf of the Central Government, and he merely communicated the same to the detenu - Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya vide the memoranda dated 13.05.2025 and 14.05.2025, respectively.

32. The satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is a subjective one. Having perused the grounds of detention, we find that adequate reasons have been recorded therein. The materials are also to the effect that there were prior occurrences of disposal of foreign marked-gold bars in India, and a live and proximate-link qua the present incident also stands established insofar as the detenu - Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain is concerned. Further, all the documents relied upon have been duly furnished to the detenus.

33. The submission that the representation dated 30.01.2026 filed by the detenu – Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain was not considered by the Detaining Authority and the outcome thereof was not communicated to him also has no factual basis, in view of the affidavit filed by the petitioner - Priyanka Sarkariya herself. In any case, the subsequent representation dated 06.02.2026, which was filed before the Competent Authority immediately upon the receipt of communication dated 04.02.2026, wherein, the detenu was informed to make the representation before the appropriate authority, would also falsify the aforesaid contention. Not only have the documents relied upon been furnished to the detenus within the requisite time, but also the translated copies of the documents.

34. Law is quite settled that every document need not be supplied and the said requirement is only qua the relied upon documents. The High Court of Karnataka has considered the contention of non-supply of the relied upon documents in the right perspective and correctly found that due service of the same has been made. In our view, the Detention Order is also quite clear qua the imminent possibility of the detenus being released on bail.

35. Though the learned Senior counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have placed substantial reliance upon numerous other judgments, we do not wish to reiterate the law laid down thereunder, simply for the reason that the said decisions do not have any application the facts governing the present case. Suffice it to state, that adequate procedural compliance has been made by the respondent(s) while passing the Detention Order dated 22.04.2025, which is under challenge.

36. In such view of the matter, both the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.

37. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

38. No order as to costs.