On September 29, 2026, a two‑judge bench of the Supreme Court of India annulled the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz, an accused alleged to have masterminded the 2024 Sambhal violence. The court also directed the Uttar Pradesh government to bear a cost of Rs 10 lakh for issuing an order that the apex court deemed illegal.
Supreme Court overturns detention order
The bench, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, held that the state could not rely on a confession allegedly recorded while Afroz was in police custody to justify a detention order under the National Security Act, 1980. The court explicitly set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had previously upheld the detention order.
During the pronouncement, Justice Datta paid tribute to his law clerk, who had died before reaching the age of 27, and dedicated the judgment to the young clerk’s memory. The decision underscores the Supreme Court’s insistence that preventive detention must be based on a “bona‑fide and informed subjective satisfaction” supported by sufficient material, rather than on confessions obtained in custody.
Background of the Sambhal incident and legal proceedings
The violence in Sambhal erupted after a court‑ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid, an event that resulted in the death of four individuals. Approximately 54 days after the incident, Mulla Afroz was arrested, reportedly on the basis of a confession made while he was in police custody. He subsequently secured bail from the Allahabad High Court, but the state government issued a fresh preventive detention order on October 13, 2025, invoking the National Security Act.
The High Court upheld that order, prompting Afroz to file a special leave petition before the Supreme Court (SLP (Crl) No. 012534 / 2026). In his submissions, Afroz argued that the police themselves had opened fire during the Sambhal violence and that this aspect had not been investigated fairly. He also contended that his arrest rested on an inadmissible custodial confession and that the mere existence of multiple criminal cases against him could not, by itself, justify preventive detention.
Afroz relied on precedents such as Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana to argue that a preventive detention order requires more than a speculative possibility of future wrongdoing; it must be grounded in concrete material that demonstrates a real threat to public order.
Court’s reasoning and the imposed cost
The Supreme Court examined whether the custodial confession could satisfy the “subjective satisfaction” required under the National Security Act. On September 8, the bench had already questioned the relevance and evidentiary value of the alleged confession, asking if such a confession could form the basis of the subjective satisfaction needed for a preventive detention order.
Justice Datta and Justice Nagu concluded that the Uttar Pradesh government’s reliance on the confession was untenable. The court emphasized that a preventive detention order must be backed by material that is both sufficient and reliable, and that a confession obtained in police custody—without independent verification—fails to meet that standard.
The state had defended the detention by arguing that there was a “likelihood” of Afroz causing further violence or disturbing public order. However, the Supreme Court found that the mere possibility of future misconduct, without cogent supporting material, does not satisfy the legal threshold for preventive detention.
In addition to quashing the detention, the court imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on the Uttar Pradesh government for issuing an illegal order. The cost reflects the court’s view that the state acted beyond its legal authority, and it serves as a deterrent against future misuse of preventive detention powers.
The judgment also highlighted procedural concerns. While the state argued that the relevance of the custodial confession should be decided in appropriate legal proceedings, the Supreme Court held that the fundamental flaw lay in the very basis of the detention order, rendering any subsequent assessment of relevance moot.
By setting aside the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that preventive detention cannot be used as a punitive measure or as a shortcut to bypass standard evidentiary requirements. The ruling reinforces the need for law‑enforcement agencies and governments to adhere strictly to constitutional safeguards when invoking the National Security Act.
Legal analysts note that the case underscores the judiciary’s vigilance in protecting individual liberty against arbitrary state action. The decision may have broader implications for other preventive detention cases across India, especially those that rely heavily on confessions obtained under custodial circumstances.
As the matter moves forward, the Uttar Pradesh government will need to reassess its approach to preventive detention, ensuring that any future orders are anchored in material that satisfies the stringent standards set by the Supreme Court. The Rs 10 lakh cost imposed by the bench serves as a financial reminder of the consequences of overstepping legal boundaries.
Be First to Comment