In a significant ruling on preventive detention, the Supreme Court on April 16, 2026, dismissed two Special Leave Petitions challenging detention orders under The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The Court upheld the Karnataka High Court’s decision, finding no procedural or legal flaws in the detention of the accused in a gold smuggling case.
Background of the Case
The case arose from intelligence inputs received by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) about gold smuggling through Bengaluru airport. In March 2025, authorities intercepted a passenger and recovered 17 foreign-marked gold bars weighing about 14.2 kg.
Read also:- Tamannaah Bhatia Loses ₹1 Crore Damages Appeal in Madras HC Over Alleged Image Misuse by Power Soaps
Subsequent investigation linked the incident to a larger smuggling network. Authorities alleged that the detenus were involved in multiple transactions between November 2024 and February 2025, including facilitating disposal of smuggled gold and handling large hawala transfers.
Preventive detention orders were issued on April 22, 2025, under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. These were later upheld by the Karnataka High Court, prompting the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
The petitioners challenged the detention on several grounds. They argued that key documents were not properly supplied, including electronic evidence stored in a pen drive.
Read also:- Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Kerala Bribery Case, Says Demand Can Be Proved Despite Hostile Witness
It was also contended that there was no real likelihood of the detenus engaging in future smuggling, especially when one of them was already in custody and had no pending bail application.
Another major contention was denial of legal representation before the Advisory Board. The petitioners claimed this violated their constitutional rights under Article 22.
The bench of Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice N.K. Singh rejected these arguments, holding that procedural safeguards had been sufficiently followed.
On the issue of legal representation, the Court clarified that under preventive detention law, a detenu does not have an automatic right to be represented by a lawyer before the Advisory Board.
“The hearing… is meant for the detenu alone,” the Court noted, adding that legal assistance is required only if the authorities themselves are represented by legal practitioners.
Read also:- Delhi HC Takes Kejriwal’s Bias Affidavit on Record, Refuses to Reopen Recusal Hearing in Excise Case
Regarding the supply of electronic evidence, the Court found that the contents of the pen drive were shown to the detenus in prison and attempts were made to provide copies to their representatives. It held that this amounted to “substantial compliance.”
The bench also dismissed claims that the detention orders lacked proper reasoning. It observed that there was sufficient material indicating prior involvement in smuggling activities and a “live and proximate link” with the present incident.
Concluding that there was no violation of constitutional or statutory safeguards, the Supreme Court upheld the detention orders.
“The Detention Order has not been issued in contravention to the constitutional mandate,” the bench held while dismissing both petitions.
Case Title: Priyanka Sarkariya vs Union of India & Anr. (with connected matter)
