The Supreme Court has quashed the National Security Act detention of Mulla Afroz, an accused in the 2024 Sambhal violence, holding that the Uttar Pradesh government could not have passed the order on the basis of a confession allegedly made in police custody, and has imposed costs of Rs 10 lakh on the State.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz, an accused in the 2024 Sambhal violence, under the National Security Act, 1980, set aside the Allahabad High Court judgment that had upheld the detention, and imposed costs of Rs 10 lakh on the Uttar Pradesh government [Mulla Afroz v. Union of India and Others].
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that the State could not have passed the detention order on the basis of a confession allegedly made by Afroz in police custody, and imposed the costs for what it found to be an illegal detention order. While pronouncing the judgment, Justice Datta dedicated it to his late law clerk. LawChakra has not yet reviewed the written judgment.
The case
The Sambhal violence followed a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid, and four persons died, according to reports. Afroz is one of the accused. He was arrested around 54 days after the incident, allegedly on the basis of a confession made while in police custody. He was later granted bail by the Allahabad High Court, but a detention order was passed against him under the National Security Act (NSA) on October 13, 2025. The High Court upheld that order, and he then approached the Supreme Court.
The allegations against Afroz in the criminal cases are untested, he is presumed innocent, and the Supreme Court’s ruling concerns only the legality of his preventive detention. The Court has expressed no view on the allegations relating to the violence.
What the petitioner argued
Before the Supreme Court, Afroz contended that the police had themselves opened fire during the violence and that this aspect had not been fairly investigated, and he sought liberty to file a protest petition on it. He argued that his arrest rested on a confession made in police custody, which is inadmissible in law, and that the mere existence of multiple criminal cases cannot by itself justify preventive detention without a bona fide and informed subjective satisfaction based on sufficient material. He relied on Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana to submit that a mere possibility of a detenu becoming involved in crime again, without cogent material, cannot furnish a valid basis for detention.
What the State argued
Defending the order, the State relied on the likelihood of Afroz causing violence or affecting public order, contending that if the material shows such a likelihood, it is enough to justify preventive detention. On the confession, it submitted that whether it was relevant or irrelevant was a matter to be considered in the appropriate legal proceedings.
The Bench’s questions at the hearing
When the Bench reserved its order on September 8, it had questioned whether a confession made in police custody could be treated as a fact capable of forming the subjective satisfaction that a detention order requires. It also asked why Afroz was arrested and made an accused 54 days after the incident when CCTV footage was available from the first day, and why that footage was not referred to in the detention order. The Bench further pointed to an apparent tension in the State’s case, which said Afroz had deleted messages from his phone while also relying on an alleged message to show his participation. At one point, Justice Datta asked, “Is this the way you pass a detention order?”
The ruling
On Tuesday, the Court quashed the detention order and set aside the High Court’s judgment. It held that the State could not have passed the order on the basis of the confession allegedly made in police custody, and it imposed costs of Rs 10 lakh on the Uttar Pradesh government for passing what it described as an illegal preventive detention order.
Why it matters
The ruling is a reminder that preventive detention is an executive measure that depends on the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction, and that this satisfaction must rest on material that can withstand judicial scrutiny. The Court found that the order could not be sustained on the material relied upon, and the imposition of costs on the State marks its disapproval of the manner in which the power was exercised in this case.
The decision does not decide the criminal cases arising from the Sambhal violence. Afroz remains an accused in those proceedings, and the allegations are yet to be tested at trial. The State’s contention that there was a likelihood of a disturbance to public order did not, in the Court’s view, sustain the detention on the material relied upon, and the exact reasoning will be clearer once the written judgment is examined.
Case Title: Mulla Afroz v. Union of India and Others [SLP (Crl) No. 012534 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: September 29, 2026
Appearances (hearing of September 8): For the Petitioner, Deepak Singh, AOR, with Divyesh Pratap Singh, Vikas Srivastava, Tanvi Saran, Sonal Kushwah and Abhinav Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents, KM Nataraj, ASG, and Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Sr AAG, with Arvind Kumar Sharma and Ruchira Goel, AORs, and other counsel.