The Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz, an accused in the 2024 Sambhal violence, holding that the Uttar Pradesh Government could not have based his detention under the National Security Act, 1980 on an alleged confession made while he was in police custody.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu also set aside the Allahabad High Court judgment that had upheld the detention order and imposed a cost of ₹10 lakh on the Uttar Pradesh Government for the illegal preventive detention.
Afroz is accused of being the alleged mastermind behind the violence that broke out in Sambhal following a court-directed survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. Four persons died in the violence.
According to the case, Afroz was arrested around 54 days after the incident, allegedly on the basis of a confession made while he was in police custody. He was subsequently granted bail by the Allahabad High Court. However, despite the grant of bail, the authorities invoked the NSA against him and passed a preventive detention order on October 13, 2025.
The detention order was later upheld by the Allahabad High Court, following which Afroz approached the Supreme Court challenging the legality of his continued detention.
A significant question before the Supreme Court was whether an alleged confession made in police custody could legitimately constitute the foundation for the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction while exercising preventive detention powers.
During the proceedings, the Bench had specifically questioned the relevance and evidentiary value of the alleged custodial confession and whether such material could satisfy the legal requirement of “subjective satisfaction” necessary for invoking the NSA.
Afroz contended that his arrest itself was founded on a confession allegedly made in police custody and that such a confession was inadmissible in law. He further argued that the mere existence of multiple criminal cases could not independently justify preventive detention.
The petitioner submitted that an order of preventive detention must be supported by sufficient and relevant material enabling the detaining authority to arrive at a bona fide and informed subjective satisfaction. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana to contend that a mere apprehension that a detenue may subsequently become involved in criminal activity cannot, without cogent supporting material, sustain preventive detention.
The State, while defending the detention, relied upon the alleged likelihood of Afroz engaging in activities capable of causing violence or disturbing public order. It maintained that preventive detention could be sustained where the material before the authorities demonstrated such a likelihood.
On the alleged custodial confession, the State argued that its relevance or otherwise was a matter that could be examined in the appropriate legal proceedings.
The Supreme Court has now rejected the foundation of the preventive detention and quashed the detention order. It also set aside the Allahabad High Court’s judgment upholding the same and directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to pay ₹10 lakh as costs.
Afroz had additionally alleged that the police had themselves opened fire during the Sambhal violence and that the issue had not been fairly investigated. He sought liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy, including filing a protest petition in respect of the allegation.
While pronouncing the order, Justice Dipankar Datta paid tribute to his law clerk, who died before attaining the age of 27, and dedicated the judgment to him
The post Supreme Court quashes NSA detention of Sambhal violence accused, imposes ₹10 lakh cost on UP Government appeared first on India Legal.