File Picture
In a major setback to Kannada film actor Harshavardhini Ranya Rao, the Supreme Court upheld the preventive detention order passed by the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (CEIB) against her for allegedly smuggling gold into the country.
A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh dismissed the appeals filed by Rao’s mother and another accused Sahil Sarkariya Jain’s cousin against the December 19, 2025 order of the Karnataka High Court which upheld the detention orders of both the detenus.
The bench said, “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 of the constitutional mandate under Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution.”
Both the detenues, Harshvardhini Ranya Rao and Sahil Sarkariya Jain, who were detained on April 22, 2025 and April 23, 2025 under provisions of provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA) respectively for facilitating the disposal of consignments of foreign-marked gold bars on four different occasions between November 14, 2024 and February 14, 2025 have challenged their detention orders mostly on technical and procedural grounds.
On the claim of not being granted legal assistance, the bench said the import of Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution can be seen on a reading of Section 8(e) of the COFEPOSA Act and a detenu cannot seek legal assistance as a matter of right.
It said 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.
It added that 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.
On the contentions made on behalf of the accused with respect to the non-supply of the pen drive by the authorities, the bench said the court finds that substantial compliance has been made by the officials of the customs authorities.
“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 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,” it said.
