On April 16, 2026, the Supreme Court upheld preventive detention orders under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) against Kannada actress Harshavardhini Ranya alias Ranya Rao and businessman Sahil Sarkariya Jain for their alleged involvement in gold smuggling.

A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh dismissed the Special Leave Petitions challenging the detention orders dated April 22, 2025. These orders had already been upheld by the Karnataka High Court.

What Happened:

The Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Bengaluru Zonal Unit received intelligence and intercepted Ranya Rao at Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru, when she returned from Dubai.

Officials recovered 17 foreign-marked gold bars weighing 14.2 kg.

Her statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 showed links to a larger smuggling network.

Based on this, Sahil Sarkariya Jain was arrested. He was allegedly involved in selling the smuggled gold and transferring ₹39.26 crore through hawala.

The Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (CEIB) then issued preventive detention orders against both under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA.

They were shown CCTV footage of the airport incident. Ranya’s lawyer refused to take the pen drive, so it was given to her mother.

Their requests for a lawyer before the Advisory Board were rejected. The Advisory Board later confirmed the detention, saying there was enough reason.

Ranya’s mother H.P. Rohini and Jain’s cousin Priyanka Sarkariya challenged the detention before the Karnataka High Court, but the High Court upheld it.

What the Supreme Court Said

The Supreme Court rejected the challenge and said:

“The submission that the representation dated 30.01.2026 filed by the detenu – Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain was not considered by the Detaining Authority and the outcome thereof was not communicated to him also has no factual basis, in view of the affidavit filed by the petitioner - Priyanka Sarkariya herself. In any case, the subsequent representation dated 06.02.2026, which was filed before the Competent Authority immediately upon the receipt of communication dated 04.02.2026, wherein, the detenu was informed to make the representation before the appropriate Page 24 of 26 SLP (C) No. 1484 of 2026 & Connected Matter authority, would also falsify the aforesaid contention. Not only have the documents relied upon been furnished to the detenus within the requisite time, but also the translated copies of the documents.”

The Court said:

All required documents were given on time
 

Translated copies were also provided
 

CCTV footage was properly shown in prison
 

The Court also said that a person detained under COFEPOSA does not automatically have the right to a lawyer before the Advisory Board. This right applies only if the government appoints a lawyer, which did not happen here.

Final Decision:

The Supreme Court found no problem with the process and dismissed both petitions, upholding the detention orders.

Case Details : PRIYANKA SARKARIYA vs THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.