Priyanka Sarkariya vs. The Union Of India

REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 371
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.
Digitally signed by
SWETA BALODI
Date: 2026.04.16
16:50:00 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter Page 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.

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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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 23 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 24 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 25 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

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