In a significant ruling in the high-profile gold smuggling case involving Kannada film actress Ranya Rao alias Harshavardhini Ranya, the Supreme Court has upheld her preventive detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA).
The Court confirmed the detention order issued by the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (CEIB), holding that no serious legal or constitutional violation was made out in the action taken by the authorities.
The case relates to allegations of organised gold smuggling, in which Ranya Rao and her associate Sahil Sarkariya Jain have been named as accused. Both had challenged the detention orders on multiple grounds, but the apex court dismissed all the petitions.
FCRF Returns With CDPO, Its Premier Data Protection Certification for Privacy Professionals
Background of the Case
As per the background of the case, on March 3, 2025, officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted Ranya Rao at Kempegowda International Airport in Bengaluru based on specific intelligence inputs. A subsequent search allegedly led to the recovery of 17 foreign-marked gold bars weighing around 14.2 kilograms. Statements were later recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
The investigation further alleged that her associate, Sahil Sarkariya Jain, assisted in the disposal and circulation of smuggled gold consignments on several occasions between November 2024 and February 2025. Based on these findings, preventive detention orders were issued on April 22, 2025, by the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Finance under COFEPOSA.
Supreme Court Rejects Pleas
The detention orders were earlier challenged before the Karnataka High Court, which had already upheld them. The matter was subsequently taken to the Supreme Court. The petitioners argued that crucial documents were not supplied within time, that there was no immediate likelihood of future smuggling activity, and that the detention lacked valid “subjective satisfaction.” They also contended that denial of effective legal representation before the Advisory Board vitiated the proceedings.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh rejected all the arguments. The Court held that the authorities had duly supplied the relied-upon documents within the prescribed timeline and that electronic evidence, including CCTV footage, had been made available to the detenus during custody.
The Court further clarified that the right to legal representation before the Advisory Board is not absolute in all cases. Such a right arises only if the detaining authority itself is represented by a legal practitioner, which was not the situation in the present case.
Court Finds Detention Valid
In its ruling, the Court observed that the detention order contained adequate grounds, including references to earlier instances involving the disposal of foreign-marked gold. It also held that a “live and proximate link” existed between the alleged activities and the necessity for preventive detention, thereby justifying action under COFEPOSA.
The Supreme Court additionally noted that there was no violation of safeguards under Article 22 of the Constitution and that the detention order had been passed in accordance with due legal procedure. On this basis, both Special Leave Petitions were dismissed.
The Court also observed that the investigation is still at a preliminary stage and that the involvement of additional individuals cannot be ruled out. It stressed the need to trace the complete smuggling network and money trail to determine the full extent of the alleged offence.
With this ruling, the legal challenge mounted by Ranya Rao and her associate has suffered a major setback, and their preventive detention under COFEPOSA will continue. The judgment is being viewed as a reaffirmation of a strict judicial approach in cases involving organised smuggling and economic offences.
About the author – Rehan Khan is a law student and legal journalist with a keen interest in cybercrime, digital fraud, and emerging technology laws. He writes on the intersection of law, cybersecurity, and online safety, focusing on developments that impact individuals and institutions in India.
