New Delhi: Harshavardhini Ranya Rao, the Kannada actress facing criminal prosecution for allegedly smuggling gold, suffered a setback Thursday, as the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging her preventive detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA).
A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh affirmed Ranya Rao’s April 2025 detention order, finding no procedural lapses in her detention in the high-profile gold smuggling case.
Rao was arrested last year after 14.2 kg of gold worth approximately Rs 12.56 crore was allegedly seized from her at Kempegowda International Airport.
Her family had contended that the detaining authority had not supplied the required documents, providing reasons for the detention, and questioned the electronic footage relied upon when issuing the detention order.
However, the SC rejected their argument, holding that the authorities substantially complied by serving Rao essential documents and showing her the relevant airport CCTV footage from a pendrive in jail.
The judges refused to accept another contention: that the advisory board, which confirmed the detention, had denied the appellant legal representation to argue her case.
It noted that under the law—Section 8(e) of COFEPOSA—there is no automatic right to legal representation. It also found sufficient grounds for establishing a live nexus between earlier smuggling incidents and ongoing risks.
The court rejected a similar challenge by the family of co-accused Sahil Sakariya Jain.
Also Read: SC refuses to lift ‘fraud’ tag on Reliance, allows proceedings by banks to go on against Anil Ambani
The accused & the appeals
Ranya Rao is the central figure in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)-led investigation, which has been ongoing since her apprehension on 3 March, 2025.
Customs officials allegedly recovered 17 foreign-marked gold bars—weighing 14.2 kg—concealed on her person, as she passed through the green channel of the international arrivals hall. Rao was formally arrested on 4 March 2025.
Rao’s statement was recorded on 10 March 2025 under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962. Co-accused Tarun Konduru Raju gave his statement on 12 March.
Based on these statements, Sahil Sarkariya Jain was arrested on 7 April 2025 and gave his Section 108 statement on 30 March 2025.
Jain, the police said, admitted to facilitating the disposal of gold consignments on four occasions in 2025—between 14 November and 14 February—spending over Rs 39.26 crore on hawala transactions. Jain allegedly admitted that these formed part of a 31-trip syndicate, which, overall, smuggled 99.13 kg of gold.
Detention orders under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act were issued on 22 April 2025 by the DRI joint secretary under the finance ministry, and the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau’s (CEIB) COFEPOSA wing. In July 2025, hefty fines were imposed on Rao, Raju, and Jain.
Ranya Rao submitted representations to the detaining authority thrice—all of which were rejected on 13-14 May 2025. The rejections were communicated via memoranda from the COFEPOSA director.
Rao also sought legal assistance for the advisory board hearing but was denied because no such right exists under COFEPOSA. Subsequently, Rao and Jain appeared virtually before the board, which found sufficient cause for their detention.
The relatives of the accused—Ranya’s mother, H.P. Rohini, and Jain’s cousin, Priyanka Sarkariya—filed writ petitions to challenge the detention orders before the Karnataka High Court, which declined any relief.
In arguments before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that their legal representations had been denied and electronic materials, such as the airport CCTV footage, had not been supplied.
What the SC said
The DRI defended both detentions by asserting that the Karnataka HC had examined all issues, substantially served the documents—including translations—to the two petitioners, and decided their representations in a timely manner.
After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court dismissed both Rao’s and Jain’s appeals.
Disagreeing with the contention that assistance provided by the DRI officials to the advisory board could be equated with legal representation, the court further held that the respondents had substantially complied with the procedure—the pen drive contents were displayed in prison without renewed requests from the detainees. It added that prison rules precluded direct access to gadgets.
The court also held that the petitioners can not raise fresh grounds to challenge the detention orders before it.
“Law is quite settled that every document need not be supplied, and the said requirement is only qua the relied upon documents. The High Court of Karnataka has considered the contention of non-supply of the relied-upon documents in the right perspective and correctly found that due service of the same has been made,” the Supreme Court held, while adding that the detention order was also quite clear of the “imminent possibility” of the detainees committing the same offence if released.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)