The Supreme Court has dismissed special leave petitions challenging preventive detention orders under the COFEPOSA Act, affirming that detenus have no automatic right to legal representation before the Advisory Board unless the state itself is represented by counsel. The judgment reinforces the constitutional balance between state security interests and individual liberty under Article 22(3)(b), while clarifying procedural compliance standards in preventive detention cases.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The detenus, Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya and Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain, were detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act), following the recovery of 17 foreign-marked gold bars (weighing approximately 14.2 kilograms) from Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya at Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru, on 03.03.2025. The Detaining Authority alleged that both detenus were part of a smuggling syndicate involved in the illegal import and disposal of foreign-marked gold through hawala transactions between November 2024 and February 2025.
Key Facts
On 03.03.2025, Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya was intercepted at Terminal 2 of Bengaluru Airport carrying 17 foreign-marked gold bars.
She was arrested on 04.03.2025 and her statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act on 10.03.2025.
Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain was arrested on 07.04.2025 after his statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act on 30.03.2025.
The Detaining Authority relied on CCTV footage from the airport interception, digital transaction records, and statements of co-accused to establish involvement.
A pen drive containing the CCTV footage and digital evidence was marked as Serial No. 51 in the list of relied upon documents appended to the detention order.
The pen drive was displayed to both detenus on a laptop in prison on 15.04.2025 and 16.04.2025 respectively, with their signatures obtained acknowledging viewing.
The detenus were informed via email and through family members that the pen drive was available for access.
Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya filed representations on 05.05.2025, 08.05.2025, and 09.05.2025 (seeking legal assistance before the Advisory Board).
Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain did not file any representation until after the High Court judgment, and later filed a corrected representation on 06.02.2026.
The Advisory Board reviewed the records and opined on 20.05.2025 that sufficient cause existed for detention.
The Central Government confirmed the detention orders on 25.05.2025.
Procedural History
03.03.2025: Interception and recovery of gold bars at Bengaluru Airport.
04.03.2025: Arrest of Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya.
07.04.2025: Arrest of Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain.
10.03.2025: Statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act (Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya).
12.03.2025: Statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act (Shri Tarun Konduru Raju).
30.03.2025: Statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act (Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain).
22.04.2025: Detention orders issued by Joint Secretary, COFEPOSA Wing, CEIB.
22.04.2025: Grounds of detention served on Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya.
23.04.2025: Grounds of detention served on Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain.
05.05.2025: First representation by Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya.
08.05.2025: Second representation by Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya.
09.05.2025: Representation seeking legal assistance before Advisory Board.
13.05.2025: Rejection of representation dated 05.05.2025 communicated by Director, COFEPOSA.
14.05.2025: Rejection of representation dated 08.05.2025 communicated by Director, COFEPOSA.
20.05.2025: Advisory Board submitted report recommending detention.
25.05.2025: Central Government confirmed detention orders.
08.06.2025: Writ petitions filed before the High Court of Karnataka.
19.12.2025: Division Bench of Karnataka High Court dismissed both writ petitions.
28.03.2026: Special Leave Petitions filed before the Supreme Court.
16.04.2026: Supreme Court delivered judgment.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners (Detenus): Argued that the detention orders were vitiated due to non-supply of the pen drive, failure to provide legal assistance before the Advisory Board, non-consideration of representations, and lack of subjective satisfaction. They contended that the reliance on digital evidence without providing access to transcripts or playback facilities rendered the detention arbitrary.
Respondents (Union of India): Maintained that the pen drive was displayed to the detenus in prison, representations were duly considered, and no legal practitioner was involved in the Advisory Board proceedings. They asserted that the Detaining Authority’s subjective satisfaction was adequately recorded and that the detenus were not denied procedural safeguards.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the detention orders dated 22.04.2025, release of the detenus, and directions to ensure compliance with Article 22(5) and Section 8(c) of the COFEPOSA Act, including the right to legal representation before the Advisory Board.
The Legal Issue
Does a detenu under the COFEPOSA Act have a right to be represented by a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board, and if so, under what circumstances? Further, does the display of digital evidence on a prison laptop, without providing physical access to the device, constitute adequate service of relied upon documents under Article 22(5)?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioners relied on A.K. Roy v. Union of India and Smitha Gireesh v. Union of India to argue that the right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) requires full access to all relied upon documents, including digital evidence. They contended that the pen drive, being integral to the grounds of detention, must be physically supplied or made accessible for independent review. They further argued that the Advisory Board’s rejection of the request for legal representation violated Article 14, especially since government officers were present to assist the Board. They cited Choith Nanikram Harchandani to show that when state representatives participate substantively, the detenu must be granted equivalent rights.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Solicitor General argued that Section 8(e) of the COFEPOSA Act explicitly bars legal representation before the Advisory Board, and that A.K. Roy permits such representation only if the state itself is represented by counsel. The respondents submitted that the pen drive was made available for viewing in prison, and no renewed request was made by the detenus. They emphasized that the communication of rejection of representations was a ministerial act by an official acting under the authority of the Detaining Authority and Central Government, and that the subjective satisfaction was adequately recorded in the grounds of detention.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution and Section 8(e) of the COFEPOSA Act, which together establish that a detenu has no automatic right to legal representation before the Advisory Board. The Court emphasized that the constitutional scheme is designed to prevent legal advocacy from undermining the preventive nature of detention, while safeguarding against arbitrariness.
"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."
The Court clarified that the holding in A.K. Roy is not a blanket denial of legal aid, but a conditional one: if the state is represented by a legal practitioner or adviser before the Advisory Board, then the detenu must be granted the same right. In this case, the Court found that government officials merely produced records and assisted the Board in understanding the evidence - a role distinct from legal advocacy. The Court held:
"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."
Regarding the pen drive, the Court distinguished Smitha Gireesh on factual grounds. In that case, the CDs were shown during investigation but not made available for review before representation. Here, the pen drive was displayed to the detenus in prison after the detention order and before they made representations. The Court noted that the detenus did not renew requests for further access, and prison rules restrict personal possession of electronic devices. The Court held:
"The contention of non-supply of the pen-drive would amount to non-furnishing of the relied upon documents is nothing but an afterthought."
The Court also rejected the argument that the rejection of representations was communicated by an incompetent authority. It held that the Director, COFEPOSA, was merely communicating decisions made by the Joint Secretary and Director General, CEIB - a ministerial act that does not vitiate the process.
The Court further found that the grounds of detention contained sufficient particulars to establish a live and proximate link between the detenus and the smuggling activity, including prior transactions and digital evidence. The subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was deemed adequate.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court dismissed both Special Leave Petitions. The detention orders dated 22.04.2025 are upheld. The detenus shall remain in custody under the COFEPOSA Act. No costs are awarded. The Court affirmed that the procedural requirements under Article 22(5) and Section 8(e) of the COFEPOSA Act were substantially complied with, and no violation of constitutional safeguards was established.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Legal Representation Before Advisory Boards Is Conditional
Practitioners must now assess whether state representatives are acting as legal advisers during Advisory Board proceedings - not merely as record-producers.
If government officers provide legal arguments or interpret evidence, the detenu must be granted equal access to counsel.
Routine assistance by administrative officers in explaining documents does not trigger the right to legal representation.
Digital Evidence Must Be Accessible, But Not Necessarily Physical
Displaying digital evidence on a controlled device in custody, with opportunity to view and acknowledge, satisfies the requirement of furnishing relied upon documents.
Detainees must make timely, specific requests for further access; failure to do so weakens subsequent challenges.
Prison rules restricting personal electronic devices do not automatically render non-supply unlawful if viewing is facilitated.
Ministerial Communication Does Not Vitiate Decisions
Rejection letters signed by subordinate officials are valid if they communicate decisions made by competent authorities.
Affidavits clarifying administrative processes can cure procedural irregularities in communication.
Courts will examine substance over form - the identity of the signatory is less critical than the identity of the decision-maker.
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
Detaining authorities must ensure grounds of detention clearly identify relied upon documents.
Translations of non-English documents must be provided if they form part of the grounds.
Delayed representations must be considered if filed promptly after being informed of procedural errors.
