Back
M. M. SUNDRESH, N. KOTISWAR SINGH
Priyanka Sarkariya – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details on detention under cofeposa act and actions taken. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. arguments from petitioners about detention legality. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. further submissions made by petitioners. (Para 15 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. court’s analysis of legal frameworks and procedural compliance. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 30 , 32) |
| 6. final ruling on special leave petitions. (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
JUDGMENT :
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.
2. Heard Mr. Amol B. Karande and Mr. T. Chezhiyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Priyanka Sarkariya in SLP (Civ
A detenu under COFEPOSA has no inherent right to legal representation in Advisory Board proceedings unless the Detaining Authority is represented, and failure to furnish all relied upon documents doe....
Point of Law : Nature and extent of right to representation under Article 22(5) of Constitution of India has been a subject for serious deliberation for long.
The validity of preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act was upheld, confirming that procedural compliance and sufficient grounds for detention were established by the authorities.
Smuggling gold – Detention order - Right to Liberty is further strengthened by provision that a law for preventive detention cannot authorise, in any case, detention for a longer period than two mont....
Detention orders are upheld when procedural safeguards are followed, and the detaining authority establishes a reasonable belief of the detainee's involvement in smuggling activities and potential re....
Preventive detention orders are invalidated if the grounds for detention are communicated in illegible or untranslated documents, infringing the detenu's constitutional rights to make effective repre....
Action under Section 7 of COFEPOSA Act is not mandatory, failure to take action under section gives scope for doubt regarding assertion that detenu had absconded or concealed himself to avoid arrest.
Quash of Detention order - Delay in passing detention order - There is nothing in Section 3 of COFEPOSA or in scheme of Act, which suggests that the especially empowered officer must act only on rece....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in deciding the representation by the Central Government did not invalidate the detention order, as the detaining authority had inde....
Preventive detention orders must adhere to statutory provisions; courts do not assess the adequacy of evidence nor grant legal representation rights before advisory boards.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
