Court dismisses petition challenging detention of smuggling syndicate leader, citing compliance with procedural requirements.
The Karnataka High Court, in a significant decision, dismissed a writ petition filed by Smt. H.P. Rohini seeking the release of her daughter, Smt. Harshavardini Ranya, who was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The court, comprising Justices Anu Sivaraman and Vijaykumar A. Patil, upheld the validity of the detention order dated April 22, 2025, finding that the procedural mandates were met, and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was justified.
The petitioner challenged the detention on multiple grounds, including the non-provision of a pen drive containing key evidence, untranslated Kannada documents, and alleged non-application of mind by the detaining authority. The court meticulously examined these contentions and noted that the contents of the pen drive were shown to the detenue on a laptop in prison, and multiple attempts were made to deliver the pen drive to her designated representative, thereby complying with procedural requirements.
Additionally, the court observed that the Kannada documents were not relied upon for the detention decision and were mistakenly included as backing sheets. The court also addressed concerns regarding the detention order's timing and the detenue's inability to access legal representation during advisory board proceedings, clarifying that the COFEPOSA Act does not provide a statutory right to legal representation in such cases.
The court emphasized that the detaining authority had duly considered the detenue's likelihood of release on bail and her potential to re-engage in smuggling activities, justifying the preventive detention. The court further noted that the detention order was served within the statutory timeframe, and all representations made by the detenue were considered by the advisory board and the central government.
This ruling reinforces the stringent requirements of the COFEPOSA Act and underscores the court's role in ensuring compliance with procedural safeguards while balancing national security interests.
Bottom Line:
Preventive detention under COFEPOSA Act is valid if subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is based on relevant materials and due procedure is followed, including the communication of relied upon documents to the detenue.
Statutory provision(s): Constitution of India, Article 22(5); COFEPOSA Act, 1974, Sections 3(1), 3(3), 8(e)
Smt. H.P. Rohini v. Joint Secretary Cofeposa, (Karnataka)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2825803
