The Supreme Court of India has dismissed Special Leave Petitions challenging the detention of two individuals under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). A Bench comprising Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that under Section 8(e) of the COFEPOSA Act and Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution, a detenu does not have a right to appear through a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board unless the detaining authority is also aided by legal counsel.
Factual Background
The case originated from the interception of Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya at Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru, on March 3, 2025. The Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) recovered 17 foreign-marked gold bars weighing approximately 14.2 kg. Following her arrest and statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, it was alleged that Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain had facilitated the disposal of gold consignments on four occasions between November 2024 and February 2025.
Detention orders were issued against both individuals on April 22, 2025, by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, DRI, under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. The High Court of Karnataka had previously upheld these orders on December 19, 2025, leading to the present appeals.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate R. Basant and Advocates Amol B. Karande and T. Chezhiyan, raised several contentions:
- Legal Assistance: They argued that the rejection of the request for legal assistance before the Advisory Board vitiated the proceedings.
- Non-Supply of Documents: It was contended that a pen drive containing CCTV footage was not properly served, as it was shown only once on a laptop in prison and later offered to family members rather than the detenus themselves.
- Competence of Authority: Petitioners claimed that representations were rejected by an incompetent authority (Director, COFEPOSA) rather than the Central Government or the Detaining Authority.
- Subjective Satisfaction: For Sahil Sarkariya Jain, it was argued there was no “live-link” or proximity between his last alleged activity in February 2025 and the incident in March 2025.
The Additional Solicitor General (ASG), appearing for the Union of India, submitted that the High Court had extensively considered all grounds. He clarified that the officials present at the Advisory Board hearing merely produced records and did not “participate” as legal advisors. He further stated that all relied-upon documents, including translated copies, were duly served.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court analyzed the interplay between Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution and Section 8(e) of the COFEPOSA Act.
On Legal Representation: Referring to the Constitution Bench decision in A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982), the Court observed:
“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.”
The Court clarified that the right to a legal practitioner arises only if the Detaining Authority takes the aid of a legal practitioner or advisor. In this case, since officers merely assisted the Board with records, the request for legal assistance was rightly rejected.
On Supply of Pen Drive and Documents: The Court found that displaying the contents of the pen drive on a laptop in prison and informing family members constituted substantial compliance.
“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.”
On the Rejection of Representations: The Court dismissed the argument regarding the “incompetent authority,” noting that the Director, COFEPOSA, performed a “mere ministerial act” by communicating the decisions actually taken by the Joint Secretary and the Central Government.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the Detaining Authority had derived valid subjective satisfaction based on prior occurrences and established a “live and proximate-link.” Finding adequate procedural compliance, the Court dismissed both Special Leave Petitions.
Case Details: Case Title: Priyanka Sarkariya v. The Union of India & Anr. (with SLP (Crl) No. 24/2026)
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1484 of 2026
Bench: Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Date: April 16, 2026
