The Supreme Court on September 29 quashed the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz under the National Security Act, 1980, in connection with the November 2024 Sambhal violence. A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu also set aside the Allahabad High Court judgment that had upheld his detention and imposed costs of ₹10 lakh on the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The Court held that an alleged confessional statement made in police custody could not, by itself, provide sufficient basis for preventive detention. The Bench also found that the detaining authority had not properly considered the relevant material before exercising the power of detention.
Background
The case arose from the violence that followed a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal in November 2024. Four people died during the incident.
Afroz was arrested on January 17, 2025, according to the Allahabad High Court record. He was later granted bail by the High Court. Despite this, the District Magistrate, Sambhal, passed a preventive detention order against him on October 13, 2025, under Section 3 of the National Security Act. The order was subsequently confirmed by the State Government and upheld by the Allahabad High Court on June 8, 2026.
Afroz then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the material relied upon for his detention, including the alleged confession recorded while he was in police custody.
The issue concerning the alleged custodial confession had already come into focus during the September 8 hearing. At that stage, the Bench questioned whether such a confession could form the basis of the “subjective satisfaction” required for preventive detention under the NSA. The Court thereafter reserved its judgment.
In its decision, the Supreme Court held that a confessional statement could not be treated as the sole foundation for preventive detention and that the surrounding circumstances and other relevant material had to be examined.
The Court observed:
“Confessional statement cannot be the sole ground for detention, surrounding circumstances have to be looked into.”
The Bench further found that the material considered by the detaining authority did not adequately support the exercise of the detention power. It therefore concluded that the preventive detention power had been illegally exercised in the present case.
The Supreme Court allowed Afroz’s appeal and quashed the detention order. It also set aside the confirmation of the detention and the Allahabad High Court judgment upholding the detention.
The Court additionally directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay ₹10 lakh as costs. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the impugned detention orders were set aside.
