2026 INSC 371 SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 1 of 26

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Civil) No. 1484 of 2026

PRIYANKA SARKARIYA …PETITIONER (S)

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR. … RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Criminal) No. 24/2026

J U D G M E N T

M. M. Sundresh, J.

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.

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 2 of 26

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.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

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

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 3 of 26

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

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 4 of 26

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

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 5 of 26

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. Harshavardhini

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.

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 6 of 26

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:

i. The Detention Order is vitiated due to the failure in furnishing

the complete list of relied upon documents. Supplying the pen

drive which is at Serial No. 51 of the relied upon documents,

appended to the Detention Order, merely to verify the contents

and size of the pen drive, and service of the same upon the mother

of the detenu – Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya amounts to

non-service. The same is also beyond the stipulated period of 15

days, in accordance with the statutory mandate, to supply all the

relied upon documents.

ii. The Detention Order is further vitiated since pages 1010 and

1011, being in Kannada language, have not been read and

understood by the detenu, which renders the Detention Order

illegal.

iii. Furthermore, pages 1077 and 1099 of the relied upon documents

have been furnished in a truncated form.

iv. No subjective satisfaction has been recorded in the Detention

Order, since the Detaining Authority did not consider the

prospect of the detenu being released on bail for issuing an

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 7 of 26

Detention Order, whilst in judicial custody. No materials existed

to derive subjective satisfaction that the detenu had traveled 31

times from January 2024. The entire subjective satisfaction has

been derived only upon the purported statement of the detenu.

v. The Detention Order stood vitiated, as there was no prospect of

the detenu indulging in smuggling activities in the future and

further the passport of detenu was in custody of the Court.

vi. The Detention Order is vitiated inasmuch as the

detenu – Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya was not apprised of her

right of being assisted by a friend in the proceedings before the

Advisory Board, neither in the grounds of detention nor in the

communication from the Advisory Board itself. Further, the

Detention Order is vitiated inasmuch as the Advisory Board has

not considered the representation of the detenu dated 09.05.2025,

seeking permission to be represented by a legal practitioner in

the proceedings before the Advisory Board.

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:

i. There is no material to connect the detenu – Shri Sahil Sarkariya

Jain to the incident dated 03.03.2025, as there is no evidence to

show the involvement of the detenu in the seizure of the foreign-

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 8 of 26

marked gold bars made at the airport, or in any other financial

transactions, except for the ones admitted by him that took place

between November, 2024 to February, 2025.

ii. The relied upon documents were not supplied to the detenu for

enabling him to make an effective and meaningful representation

before the Detaining Authority and the Central Government, and

extraneous materials have been taken into consideration while

passing the Detention Order.

iii. The involvement of Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain is alleged to have

been traced only from the digital evidence and subsequent

statements dated 25.03.2025 to 02.04.2025, in which, he had

stated that he was an intermediary between Smt. Harshavardhini

Ranya and one Shri Avinash, in pursuance of which he has

transferred hawala money on four occasions to the extent of

Rs. 39,26,46,619/-. Apart from the said four hawala transactions,

there was no material to show his involvement in the remaining

27 trips undertaken by the smuggling syndicate. Thus, there is a

mechanical attribution to the detenu as being part of the

smuggling syndicated involved in smuggling 99.1337 kilograms

of gold. The sweeping reference to his involvement in all

transactions (31 trips) is vitiated by non-application of mind. The

last transaction connecting the detenu as alleged by the

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 9 of 26

respondents was on 14.02.2025, and there is no reason to justify

the preventive detention of the detenu, since there is no live and

proximate link between the last incident on 14.02.2025 and the

one on 03.03.2025.

iv. The detenu’s bail application was rejected on 15.04.2025. Thus,

there was no material before the Detaining Authority to indicate

any probable release on bail or otherwise, or any real possibility

of him indulging in illegal activities of smuggling upon being

released. When a person is in custody and no bail application

preferred by him/her is pending, there is no basis to assume the

likelihood of release on bail and, hence, the subjective

satisfaction stands vitiated.

v. There is a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India

(for short, ‘the Constitution’), since a conclusion was drawn

that the electronic devices seized from the

detenu - Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya established a connection

between her and the detenu - Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain. However,

it is contended that the relied upon documents served upon the

detenu did not contain details of the transcripts from such

electronic devices or any other electronic evidence, supporting

the said conclusion.

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 10 of 26

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.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

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

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 11 of 26

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:

i. Shalini Soni (Smt) and Others v. Union of India and

Others, (1980) 4 SCC 544.

ii. Icchu Devi Choraria (Smt) v. Union of India and

Others, (1980) 4 SCC 531.

iii. Jaseela Shaji v. Union of India and Others, (2024) 9

SCC 53.

iv. Nenavath Bujji And Others v. State of Telangana and

Others, (2024) 17 SCC 294.

v. Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of Telangana and Others,

(2020) 13 SCC 632.

vi. Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate,

Jabalpur and Others, (2021) 20 SCC 98.

vii. P.P. Rukhiya v. Joint Secretary, Government and

Another, (2019) 20 SCC 740.

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 12 of 26

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:

i. A.K. Roy v. Union of India and Others, (1982) 1 SCC

271.

ii. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another v. Balajangam

Subbarajamma, (1989) 1 SCC 193.

iii. Choith Nanikram Harchandani v. State of

Maharashtra and Others, (2015) 17 SCC 688.

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 13 of 26

iv. K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union

of India and Others, (1991) 1 SCC 476.

v. Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India and

Others, (1995) 4 SCC 51.

vi. Venmathi Selvam (Mrs) v. State of T.N. and Another,

(1998) 5 SCC 510.

vii. Harshala Santosh Patil v. State of Maharashtra and

Others, (2006) 12 SCC 211

viii. Ankit Ashok Jalan v. Union of India and Others, (2020)

16 SCC 127

ix. Rama Dhondu Borade v. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of

Police and Others, (1989) 3 SCC 173

x. Icchu Devi Choraria (Smt) v. Union of India and

Others, (1980) 4 SCC 531.

xi. Smitha Gireesh v. Union of India & Ors., 2016 SCC

OnLine Del 3697

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

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

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 14 of 26

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

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 15 of 26

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.

RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

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

“22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.

(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without

being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor

shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal

practitioner of his choice.

(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be

produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four

hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from

the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall

be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of

a magistrate.

(3) Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply—

(a) to any person who for the time being is an enemy alien; or

(b) to any person who is arrested or detained under any law

providing for preventive detention.”

(emphasis supplied)

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

“8. Advisory Boards.—For the purposes of sub-clause (a) of clause

(4), and sub-clause (c) of clause (7), of Article 22 of the

Constitution,—

xxx xxx xxx

(c) the Advisory Board to which a reference is made under

clause (b) shall after considering the reference and the materials

placed before it and after calling for such further information as it

may deem necessary from the appropriate Government or from

any person called for the purpose through the appropriate

Government or from the person concerned, and if in any particular

case, it considers it essential so to do or if the person concerned

desires to be heard in person, after hearing him in person, prepare

its report specifying in a separate paragraph thereof its opinion as

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 16 of 26

to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the

person concerned and submit the same within eleven weeks from

the date of detention of the person concerned;

xxx xxx xxx

(e) a person against whom an order of detention has been made

under this Act shall not be entitled to appear by any legal

practitioner in any matter connected with the reference to the

Advisory Board, and the proceedings of the Advisory Board and its

report, excepting that part of the report in which the opinion of the

Advisory Board is specified shall be confidential;”

(emphasis supplied)

LEGAL ANALYSIS

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.

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 17 of 26

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:

“93. We must therefore hold, regretfully though, that the detenu

has no right to appear through a legal practitioner in the

proceedings before the Advisory Board. It is, however, necessary to

add an important caveat. The reason behind the provisions

contained in Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution clearly is that a

legal practitioner should not be permitted to appear before the

Advisory Board for any party. The Constitution does not

contemplate that the detaining authority or the government should

have the facility of appearing before the Advisory Board with the

aid of a legal practitioner but that the said facility should be denied

to the detenu. In any case, that is not what the Constitution says

and it would be wholly inappropriate to read any such meaning

into the provisions of Article 22. Permitting the detaining authority

or the government to appear before the Advisory Board with the

aid of a legal practitioner or a legal adviser would be in breach of

Article 14, if a similar facility is denied to the detenu. We must

therefore make it clear that if the detaining authority or the

government takes the aid of a legal practitioner or a legal adviser

before the Advisory Board, the detenu must be allowed the facility

of appearing before the Board through a legal practitioner. We are

informed that officers of the government in the concerned departments

often appear before the Board and assist it with a view to justifying the

detention orders. If that be so, we must clarify that the Boards

should not permit the authorities to do indirectly what they cannot

do directly; and no one should be enabled to take shelter behind the

excuse that such officers are not “legal practitioners” or legal

advisers. Regard must be had to the substance and not the form

since, especially, in matters like the proceedings of Advisory

Boards, whosoever assists or advises on facts or law must be

deemed to be in the position of a legal adviser. We do hope that

Advisory Boards will take care to ensure that the provisions of Article

14 are not violated in any manner in the proceedings before them.

Serving or retired Judges of the High Court will have no difficulty in

understanding this position. Those who are merely “qualified to be

appointed” as High Court Judges may have to do a little homework in

order to appreciate it.”

(emphasis supplied)

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

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 18 of 26

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.

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 19 of 26

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.

“4. It is also necessary to point out that in case of an application for

a writ of habeas corpus, the practice evolved by this Court is not to

follow strict rules of pleading nor place undue emphasis on the

question as to on whom the burden of proof lies. Even a postcard

written by a detenu from jail has been sufficient to activise this

Court into examining the legality of detention. This Court has

consistently shown great anxiety for personal liberty and refused to

throw out a petition merely on the ground that it does not disclose a

prima facie case invalidating the order of detention. Whenever a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus has come up before this Court, it

has almost invariably issued a rule calling upon the detaining authority

to justify the detention. This Court has on many occasions pointed out

that when a rule is issued, it is incumbent on the detaining authority to

satisfy the court that the detention of the petitioner is legal and in

conformity with the mandatory provisions of the law authorising such

detention: vide Niranjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1972) 2

SCC 542 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 880 : AIR 1972 SC 2215] ; Shaikh Hanif,

Gudma Majhi & Kamal Saha v. State of West Bengal [(1974) 3 SCR

258 ; (1974) 1 SCC 637 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 292] and Dulal Roy v. District

Magistrate, Burdwan [(1975) 1 SCC 837 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 329 : (1975)

3 SCR 186] . It has also been insisted by this Court that, in answer

to this rule, the detaining authority must place all the relevant facts

before the court which would show that the detention is in

accordance with the provisions of the Act. It would be no argument

on the part of the detaining authority to say that a particular

ground is not taken in the petition: vide Nizamuddin v. State of West

Bengal [(1975) 3 SCC 395 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 21 : (1975) 2 SCR 593] .

Once the rule is issued it is the bounden duty of the court to satisfy

itself that all the safeguards provided by the law have been

scrupulously observed and the citizen is not deprived of his

personal liberty otherwise than in accordance with law: vide Mohd.

Alam v. State of West Bengal [(1974) 4 SCC 463 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 499

: (1974) 3 SCR 379] and Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal [(1975)

2 SCC 81 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 435 : (1975) 2 SCR 832] .”

(emphasis supplied)

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 20 of 26

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

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 21 of 26

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, the following views have been expressed:

“58. It is a settled law when clause (5) of Article 22 and sub-section 3

of Section 3 of COFEPOSA Act provide that the grounds of detention

should be communicated to the detenue within five or fifteen days, as

the case may be, what is meant is that the grounds of detention in their

entirety must be furnished to the detenue. If there are any documents,

statements or other material relied upon in the grounds of detention,

they must also be communicated to the detenue, because being

incorporated in the grounds of detention, as they form part of the

grounds and the grounds furnished to the detenue cannot be said to be

complete without them. It would not therefore be sufficient to

communicate to the detenue a bare recital of the grounds of detention,

but copies of the documents, statements and other materials relied upon

in the grounds of detention must also be furnished to the detenue within

the prescribed time. The stand of the respondents that they had shown

the CDs to the detenu during the course of investigation is not a proper

service as per law. The detaining authority heavily relied upon the CDs

in the grounds of detention and thus were duty bound to show the entire

contents of the same to the detenue as a matter of right. The Court

cannot lose track of the fact that the detenue was in judicial custody and

he could not have access to any facility for seeing the CDs and cannot

be forced to rely on his memory for making an effective representation

against the detention order. The right to make a representation is a right

provided in the Constitution. The supply of 12 CDs as relied upon

documents are not disputed by the respondents, but the respondents

failed to provide the facility to see the CDs for making an effective

representation even before the meeting of the Advisory Board which

was held on 12.02.2016. It may also be noted that from the list of events

enclosed by the respondents in their counter affidavit at Serial No. 106

of page No. 38, that an officer was deputed to the Sub-Jail Sada Goa

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 22 of 26

along with a laptop to facilitate the viewing of the CDS by the detenue-

Imtiyaz Hussain. There is no explanation why the respondents took

a different approach against the request of the present detenue and

could not provide a CD player to the detenue to view the CDs which

form part of the relied upon documents.

xxx xxx xxx

69. There are reference to CCTV footage in paragraphs 87 to 89 and as

many as 29 times in the entire grounds of detention. In effect, it can

safely be said that to form a subjective satisfaction the detaining

authority has relied on the CCTV footage, and thus, the CCTV footage

in the 12 CDs are held to be relied upon documents. Merely because

the CDs provided to the detenue along with the show cause notice or he

was shown the CCTV footage at the time of recording of the statement

under Section 108 of the Customs Act, in our view cannot take the place

of providing the mechanism for viewing the CDs in view of the settled

law of the land. On this ground as well, in our view, the order of

detention is liable to be quashed.”

(emphasis supplied)

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.

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 23 of 26

FACTUAL ANALYSIS

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

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 24 of 26

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

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 25 of 26

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.

SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 26 of 26

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

38. No order as to costs.

..………………………..J.

(M. M. SUNDRESH )

……………………… …. J.

(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH )

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 16, 2026