PRIYANKA SARKARIYA vs THE UNION OF INDIA — SLP(C) No. 1484/2026
Case under Habeas Corpus and Preventive Detention : Slps Arising Out of Habeas Corpus and Preventive Detention Matters Before the High Court Section IV-A. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010009242026
Filing Date
07-Jan-2026
Registration No
SLP(C) No. 1484/2026
Diary Number
924/2026
Order Date
16-Apr-2026
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Neutral Citation
2026 INSC 371
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 05-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.PRIYANKA SARKARIYA
Adv. AMOL B. KARANDE
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE UNION OF INDIA
Adv. GURMEET SINGH MAKKER[R-1]
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Apr-2026
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Apr-2026
Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Apr-2026
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
-
24-Mar-2026
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Mar-2026
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
-
17-Mar-2026
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Mar-2026
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
-
27-Feb-2026
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
27-Feb-2026
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
-
12-Jan-2026
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. SLP(C) No. 1484/2026
-
[ 2026 INSC 371 ]
Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF
Summary of SLP(C) No. 1484/2026 - PRIYANKA SARKARIYA v. UNION OF INDIA Case Outcome: The Supreme Court bench (Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh) dismissed both Special Leave Petitions on April 16, 2026, upholding the High Court of Karnataka's confirmation of detention orders dated 22.04.2025 against two individuals under the COFEPOSA Act. Key Issue: Petitioners challenged preventive detention orders for alleged smuggling of foreign-marked gold bars, raising claims of procedural violations including inadequate disclosure of relied-upon documents, denial of legal representation before the Advisory Board, and insufficient nexus between one detenue and the alleged offense. Court's Decision: Rejecting all challenges, the Court found substantial procedural compliance and adequate grounds for detention. The Court clarified that detenues cannot claim legal assistance as a matter of right before Advisory Boards, and that substantial compliance with disclosing video footage (via pen drive display on prison laptops) satisfied constitutional requirements. The satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was found to be subjective and well-founded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts