Detenu has no right to legal representation before Advisory Board unless the Detaining Authority is similarly represented.

In brief

The question

Whether the denial of legal practitioner assistance during the Advisory Board proceedings violated the detenu’s rights under Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 8 of the COFEPOSA Act

The court held

The Supreme Court dismissed both Special Leave Petitions, holding that the detention orders were passed following adequate procedural compliance

It also directed

The Court clarified that (a) a detenu cannot claim legal representation before the Advisory Board as a right unless the authorities are so represented; (b) displaying electronic evidence in prison constitutes sufficient service when access to gadgets is restricted by prison rules; and (c) ministerial communication of a validly reached decision by the Detaining Authority does not invalidate the detention

No order as to costs was made

01Facts

The petitioners challenged the Karnataka High Court's judgments dated 19.12.2025, which upheld detention orders issued on 22.04.2025 under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act

¶ 1

The detenu, Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya, was intercepted at Bengaluru Airport on 03.03.2025 carrying 14.2 kg of gold

¶ 4

Investigation revealed a smuggling syndicate involving 31 trips, with the second detenu, Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain, allegedly facilitating hawala transactions and gold disposal

¶ 3, 13(iii)

Grounds of detention were served alongside a pen drive containing CCTV footage; the footage was displayed to the detenus in prison via a laptop

¶ 7

Representations against the detention were rejected, and the Advisory Board opined that sufficient cause existed for detention

¶ 10-11

The petitioners alleged procedural lapses, including non-supply of electronic evidence, denial of legal assistance before the Advisory Board, and improper communication of rejection orders

¶ 12-13

02Issues

i.Whether the denial of legal practitioner assistance during the Advisory Board proceedings violated the detenu’s rights under Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 8 of the COFEPOSA Act

¶ 17, 19

ii.Whether the display of pen drive contents on a department laptop, without providing a continuous viewing facility or a physical copy to the detenu, constitutes non-furnishing of relied-upon documents

¶ 26-27

iii.Whether the communication of the rejection of representations by a "Director" (a ministerial officer) rather than the Detaining Authority itself vitiates the detention

¶ 10, 30

iv.Whether there existed a live and proximate link between the detenu’s past activities and the detention order, especially when the detenu was already in judicial custody

¶ 13(iii)-(iv), 32

03Law Applied

The Court applied Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution, which excludes persons under preventive detention from the fundamental right to consult a legal practitioner

¶ 19

It relied on Section 8(e) of the COFEPOSA Act, which expressly prohibits legal practitioners from appearing before the Advisory Board unless the Detaining Authority also employs one

¶ 18, 20

The Court followed the Constitution Bench precedent in A.K. Roy v. Union of India, which held that a detenu has no right to a lawyer before the Board unless the government takes the aid of a legal practitioner or adviser

¶ 20-21

Furthermore, it applied the principle that "substantial compliance" in furnishing documents is sufficient if the detenu is enabled to make an effective representation

¶ 25-26

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 Section 3 Section 8

Customs Act,1962 Section 108

04Reasoning

The Court reasoned that under Section 8(e) of the COFEPOSA Act, legal assistance is not a matter of right for a detenu

¶ 19

Since the respondent's officers merely produced records and did not act as "legal practitioners," the denial of a lawyer to the detenu was constitutionally valid per A.K. Roy

¶ 21

Regarding the pen drive, the Court found "substantial compliance" because the contents were displayed to the detenus and they did not renew any request for further viewing; thus, the claim of non-supply was deemed an "afterthought"

¶ 26, 29

On the communication of rejections, the Court held that the "Director, COFEPOSA" performed a mere ministerial act of communicating decisions actually taken by the competent Detaining Authority and the Central Government

¶ 30-31

Finally, the Court affirmed the Detaining Authority’s subjective satisfaction, noting the established "live and proximate link" between the prior gold smuggling transactions and the current incident

¶ 32