Supreme Court upholds Kannada actor Ranya Rao’s detention in gold smuggling case

Weather ePaper Today’s Paper Journalism of Courage Home ePaper Politics Explained Opinion India Business Premium Cities UPSC Entertainment Sports World Lifestyle Tech Subscribe Sign In TrendingUPSC OfferIPL 2026US NewsPuzzles & GamesLegal NewsFresh TakeHealthResearch🎙️ Podcast Advertisement function checkAndLoadWindowSizeScript() { if (window.jQuery) { // jQuery is loaded, include your script jQuery(document).ready(function($) { // Your existing script for checking window width if (window.innerWidth) var page_w = window.innerWidth; else if (document.all) var page_w = document.body.clientWidth; if (page_w > 1024) { $(".add-left, .add-right").show(); } else { $(".add-left, .add-right").hide(); } }); } else { // jQuery is not loaded, check again after 0.2 seconds setTimeout(checkAndLoadWindowSizeScript, 200); } } // Initial call to the function checkAndLoadWindowSizeScript(); NewsLegalSupreme Court upholds Kannada actor Ranya Rao’s detention in gold smuggling case Supreme Court upholds Kannada actor Ranya Rao’s detention in gold smuggling case Authorities at the Bengaluru airport had intercepted Ranya Rao on March 3, 2025, and recovered foreign-marked gold bars, which triggered an investigation into her links, the Supreme Court noted. Written by: Vineet Upadhyay5 min readNew DelhiApr 17, 2026 10:34 AM IST Acting on intelligence inputs, officials intercepted Ranya Rao at Bengaluru airport near the Green Channel and recovered 17 foreign-marked gold bars, weighing approximately 14.2 kg. (File photo) Make us preferred source on Google Whatsapp twitter Facebook Reddit PRINT Supreme Court news: The Supreme Court has upheld the preventive detention order passed by the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (CEIB) against Kannada actor Harshavardhini Ranya, also known as Ranya Rao, for allegedly smuggling gold into India last year. The court also affirmed the detention of her alleged aide, Sahil Sarkariya Jain, under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (COFEPOSA) Act. A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh was hearing petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court’s ruling of December 19, 2025, which had upheld the detention orders issued on April 22, 2025. “Though submissions have been made that the representations of the detenu – Smt Harshavardhini Ranya were disposed of by the incorrect authority, that too, representing two different statutory authorities, the said submission also falls to the ground, as the signatory of the two memoranda rejecting the representations, merely communicated the decisions made by each concerned authority, namely, the Detaining Authority and the Government of India,” the Supreme Court said on April 16, 2026, rejecting the challenge to the detention. The case originates from a major gold seizure at the Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru. Acting on intelligence inputs, officials intercepted Ranya on March 3, 2025, near the Green Channel and recovered 17 foreign-marked gold bars, weighing approximately 14.2 kg. She was arrested the following day, and a subsequent investigation led to the arrest of Jain on April 7, 2025. Authorities alleged that Jain acted as an intermediary in a smuggling syndicate and facilitated hawala transactions worth over Rs 39 crore between November 2024 and February 2025. Based on these findings, detention orders were issued under COFEPOSA on April 22, 2025, to prevent further smuggling activities. The detenues challenged the orders on multiple grounds, including non-supply of relied-upon documents – particularly CCTV footage stored in a pen drive, denial of legal representation before the advisory board, lack of a “live and proximate link” between the alleged acts and detention, and improper handling of their representations. It was argued that these lapses violated constitutional safeguards under Article 22. Rejecting the plea, the Supreme Court reiterated that under Article 22(3)(b) and the COFEPOSA framework, a detenu does not have an automatic right to be represented by a lawyer before the advisory board. “The detenu has no right of being represented by the counsel in the proceedings before the Advisory Board… such a right arises only when the detaining authority itself takes the aid of a legal practitioner,” the Supreme Court said, referring to an earlier verdict, and rejected one of the principal challenges to the detention. On the issue of non-supply of the pen drive containing CCTV footage, the apex court held that the authorities had complied with legal requirements. The footage was shown to the detenues in prison, efforts were made to supply the pen drive to their representatives, and no further request for access was made. The court observed that prison restrictions on electronic devices were relevant and termed the objection an “afterthought.” The Supreme Court upheld the “subjective satisfaction” of the detaining authority, noting evidence of repeated involvement in smuggling activities, a clear link between past conduct and the need for preventive detention, and consideration of the likelihood of release on bail. Addressing another challenge, the bench held that representations made by the detenues were duly considered by competent authorities. The fact that communications were sent by a common officer did not invalidate the process, as it was merely a “ministerial act.” Dismissing the petitions, the Supreme Court concluded that adequate procedural compliance had been made and the detention order dated April 22, 2025, did not warrant interference. All pending applications were disposed of without costs. “Having perused the grounds of detention, we find that adequate reasons have been recorded therein. The materials are also to the effect that there were prior occurrences of disposal of foreign-marked gold bars in India, and a live and proximate link qua the present incident also stands established insofar as the detenu – Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain is concerned,” the Supreme Court said. Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system. Expertise Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including: Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability. Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters. Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights. Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More