No Absolute Right to Lawyer Before COFEPOSA Advisory Board: Supreme Court Upholds Gold Smuggling Detention

Case Name: Priyanka Sarkariya v. Union of India & Anr. (with connected matter)
Citation: 2026 INSC 371
Date of Judgment/Order: 16 April 2026
Bench: Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Held: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the preventive detention orders passed under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, holding that a detenu has no absolute right to legal representation before the Advisory Board under Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution and Section 8(e) of the Act, unless the detaining authority itself engages legal assistance. The Court further held that substantial compliance with procedural safeguards, including supply and display of relied-upon electronic material, is sufficient, and minor deviations do not vitiate detention when the detenus are afforded a meaningful opportunity to make representation.

Summary: The case arose from detention orders issued against individuals allegedly involved in gold smuggling operations, including recovery of 14.2 kg of foreign-marked gold at Bengaluru airport and linked hawala transactions. The detenus challenged the detention orders before the Karnataka High Court, which upheld them, leading to appeals before the Supreme Court. The petitioners raised multiple grounds including non-supply of relied documents, improper service of electronic evidence, denial of legal representation before the Advisory Board, lack of subjective satisfaction, absence of proximate link to alleged activities, and procedural irregularities in consideration of representations. The Supreme Court examined the statutory framework under the COFEPOSA Act and constitutional protections under Article 22, reiterating that preventive detention laws carve out exceptions to ordinary procedural rights. The Court distinguished prior precedents and held that officials assisting the Advisory Board by producing records do not amount to legal representation triggering parity rights. It further held that displaying pen drive contents in prison and attempts to furnish copies constituted adequate compliance, especially where no further request was made. The Court also found that representations were duly considered by competent authorities and that communication through a designated officer was merely ministerial. On merits, the Court found sufficient material establishing a live and proximate link between past conduct and the need for preventive detention.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed both Special Leave Petitions, affirming the Karnataka High Court’s judgments and upholding the detention orders under the COFEPOSA Act, with all pending applications disposed of and no order as to costs.