The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, May 13, directed the Central Government to file its objections in response to a writ petition filed by the mother of Kannada actress Harshavardhini Ranya Rao, challenging her preventive detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA).
Ranya Rao, currently in judicial custody, was arrested for allegedly smuggling gold into India from Dubai. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) apprehended her at the Kempegowda International Airport in Bengaluru on March 3. According to the DRI, gold bars worth ₹12.56 crore were recovered from her during the airport seizure. A follow-up search at her residence led to the discovery of gold jewellery worth ₹2.06 crore and Indian currency amounting to ₹2.67 crore.
Read Also:-Sonu Nigam Approaches Karnataka High Court To Quash FIR Over Alleged Comments During Concert
Ranya has been booked under multiple provisions of the Customs Act, including Sections 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b), 135(1)(a)(i)(a), 135(1)(a)(i)(b), 135(1)(b)(i)(a), and 135(1)(b)(i)(b). The High Court had earlier denied her bail on April 26 in connection with these charges.
A vacation bench comprising Justice H P Sandesh and Justice Ramchandra D Huddar took up the matter and issued directions to the Union Government.
"Heard the petitioner's counsel and counsel for respondents. The respondent to file objections in two weeks' time. List the matter on June 3," the bench stated during the hearing.
The petition filed by Ranya's mother argues that the detention order under COFEPOSA was issued on April 22 and served on April 23 without giving the detenue an opportunity to make a representation to the relevant authorities, which, according to the petitioner, is a violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
The counsel representing the petitioner contended that the legal procedure under the Constitution requires the Detenu to be provided with the grounds of detention and all related documents at the time of service of the detention order. However, the plea states that none of these were made available, making the detention procedurally flawed and constitutionally invalid.
"The Order of Detention suffers from non-application of mind inasmuch as there is no head of detention under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act to detain the Detenu from smuggling goods, engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods," the petition argues.
It further alleges that both the grounds and the order of detention are manifestly erroneous and reflect a lack of application of mind by the detaining authority. As a result, the detention is being contested as illegal and void from the outset.
During the hearing, Deputy Solicitor General H Shanthi Bhushan, appearing for the Union of India, requested four weeks to file objections. However, this request was opposed by the petitioner’s counsel, who insisted on allowing only two weeks, highlighting the fact that the petitioner’s daughter remains in custody.
The High Court agreed to the shorter timeline and directed the Union Government to submit its objections within two weeks. The matter is now scheduled for the next hearing on June 3.
The case, titled H P Rohini vs Joint Secretary & Others, is being heard under WPHC 47/2025. Advocate Chandra Shekara K is representing the petitioner, while DSGI H Shanthi Bhushan is appearing for the respondents.
