Setback for Ranya Rao in gold smuggling case as Supreme Court upholds preventive detention

The appeals were 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 their detention.

New Delhi: In a major setback to Kannada film actor Harshavardhini Ranya Rao, the Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed her plea against 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 rejected 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 their detention.

In its judgment, the court found 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 Ranya Rao and Jain were detained on April 22, 2025 and April 23, 2025 respectively 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.

They 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.

The court also 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.

"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,'' the bench said.

In respect of contentions made on behalf of the accused on the non-supply of the pen drive by the authorities, the bench found 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,'' the bench said.

The court said, 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.

The court also pointed out the satisfaction of the detaining authority is a subjective one and that adequate reasons have been recorded therein.

The bench noted, "The materials are also to the effect that there were prior occurrences of disposal of foreign marked-gold bars in India, and a live and proximate-link qua the present incident also stands established insofar as the detenu Sahil Sarkariya Jain is concerned. Further, all the documents relied upon have been duly furnished to the detenus.''