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.

JUDGMENT :

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

1. This Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) has been filed by Smt. H.P. Rohini, the mother of the detenue, Smt. Harshavardini Ranya, seeking issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus declaring the Order of Detention bearing F.No. PD- 12001/01/2025-COFEPOSA dated 22.04.2025 under Section 3 (1) of the CONSERVATION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE AND PREVENTION OF SMUGGLING ACTIVITIES ACT , 1974 (“COFEPOSA Act” for short), as illegal.

2. We have heard Shri. Kiran S. Javali, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Chandrashekara K, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Shri. Kuloor Arvind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, along with Shri Shanthi Bhushan H, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for Respondents No.1 and 2 and Shri Thejesh P, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for Respondent No.3.

3. The facts of the case are as follows:-

Smt. Harshavardini Ranya, the detenue herein was intercepted on 03.03.2025 at the Green Channel of the Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru while attempting to leave the Airport after arrival from Dubai without making any declaration. A personal search revealed that she was attempting to smuggle 17 foreign- marked gold bars weighing approximately 14,213.050 grams of foreign origin gold brought from Dubai into India. A voluntary statement was recorded on 04.03.2025. Thereafter, a search was conducted at her residence and cash of Rs.2,67,00,000/- and jewellary worth Rs.2,06,00,000/- along with two customs declarations were seized. Further, voluntary statements of the detenue, Shri. Tarun Konduru Raju, who was implicated by the detenue and Shri. Sahil Sarkariya Jain and several others were recorded. Based on these and other materials procured during the course of investigation, a detention order under Section 3 (3) of the COFESPOSA Act was passed on 22.04.2025.

4. The detenue was in Judicial Custody. The order of detention was served on her on 23.04.2025. On 27.04.2025, the Grounds of Detention and the list of relied upon documents were served. The detenue filed representations including a representation dated 05.05.2025 to the Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) which was disposed of on 13.05.2025. Representation dated 08.05.2025 was made to the Government of India which was also disposed of on 14.05.2025 and representation dated 08.05.2025 addressed to the Advisory Board was forwarded along with comments of the Detaining Authority.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order of detention is illegal and suffers from non-application of mind by respondent No.1. The detention order alone was served on 23.04.2025. The relied upon documents were served only on 27.04.2025, that too, without informing the detenue of her right to make a representation against the detention. This constitutes a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and is contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as the procedure established by law has not been followed.

6. It is further contended that the petitioner has challenged the impugned detention order based on the following grounds and relied upon the following decisions as well:-

I. The order of detention is vitiated due to failure to furnish the relied upon documents in full. The making available of the Pen Drive which is at Sl.No.51 of the documents relied on appended to the detention order to the detenue to merely verify the contents and size of the pen drive and the serv