The Supreme Court on Tuesday, September 29, quashed the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz, an accused in the 2024 Sambhal violence case, under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu also set aside the Allahabad High Court judgment that had upheld the detention order and imposed costs of ₹10 lakh on the Uttar Pradesh government.
The court held that the Uttar Pradesh authorities could not rely on an alleged confession made by Afroz while in police custody as the basis for the preventive detention order.
“We quash the detention order, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and impose costs of ₹10 lakh on the State of Uttar Pradesh for passing the illegal detention order,” the court said.
Supreme Court questions custodial confession
The case came before the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court upheld Afroz’s detention under the NSA.
The Supreme Court had reserved its order on September 8 after questioning the relevance of the alleged custodial confession. The bench had asked whether such a statement could form the basis of the “subjective satisfaction” required for passing a preventive detention order.
Afroz was arrested around 54 days after the November 2024 violence in Sambhal, which broke out following a court ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. Four people were killed in the violence.
He was arrested by police in January 2025 and was later granted bail by the Allahabad High Court. Despite the grant of bail, the District Magistrate passed an order for his preventive detention under Section 3 of the NSA on October 13, 2025.
The Allahabad High Court subsequently upheld the detention, prompting Afroz to approach the Supreme Court.
Court examines preventive detention
Before the Supreme Court, Afroz’s lawyers argued that his arrest was based on a confession allegedly made in police custody and that such a confession could not form a valid basis for preventive detention.
His lawyers also argued that the mere existence of criminal cases cannot by itself justify preventive detention. They relied on earlier Supreme Court judgments, including Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, to argue that preventive detention requires sufficient material showing a real likelihood of future conduct affecting public order.
The Uttar Pradesh government defended the detention, arguing that the material available to the authorities showed a likelihood of Afroz engaging in activities that could disturb public order.
The State also argued that questions about the relevance or admissibility of the alleged confession could be examined in the appropriate criminal proceedings.
High Court had upheld detention
The Allahabad High Court had earlier held that the detaining authority had applied its mind and had sufficient material to reach a subjective satisfaction that Afroz should be detained under the NSA.
The High Court had also observed that the grounds of detention contained details of the alleged acts and their impact on public order, and that there was material to indicate a possibility of similar acts being repeated.
The Supreme Court has now set aside those findings and quashed the detention order.
Judgment dedicated to law clerk
During the pronouncement, Justice Dipankar Datta also expressed grief over the death of a law clerk who passed away shortly before his 27th birthday.
The bench dedicated the judgment to the deceased law clerk.
Advocate Divyesh Pratap Singh appeared for Afroz, while Additional Solicitor General KM Natraj represented the respondents.
The Supreme Court’s ruling concerns the legality of Afroz’s preventive detention under the NSA. The criminal proceedings and allegations arising from the Sambhal violence remain separate from the court’s decision on the detention order.
