As per case facts, petitioners challenged detention orders under the COFEPOSA Act, upheld by the Karnataka High Court, for alleged involvement in smuggling foreign-marked gold bars. The detenus, arrested after ... intelligence-led interception and recovery of gold, contended that their detention was vitiated due to incomplete supply of relied-upon documents, including electronic evidence, untranslated Kannada pages, truncated documents, lack of subjective satisfaction regarding bail, and denial of legal assistance before the Advisory Board. The question arose whether the detention orders were vitiated due to non-supply of all relied-upon documents, denial of legal assistance during Advisory Board proceedings, and improper consideration of representations, especially given the constitutional right to make effective representations. Finally, the Supreme Court found that substantial procedural compliance was met by the respondent authorities. The Court observed that the contents of the pen drive were displayed to the detenus, and efforts were made to provide it, with no further requests from their side. It was clarified that detenus do not have an inherent right to legal assistance before the Advisory Board unless the Detaining Authority avails itself of legal representation. The rejection of representations was deemed a ministerial communication, not a decision by an incompetent authority. Consequently, the Court concluded that adequate procedural adherence was maintained, and the subjective satisfaction for detention was valid, dismissing the petitions.