SC sets aside Sambhal violence accused's NSA detention
What's the story
The Supreme Court has quashed the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz, an accused in the 2024 Sambhal violence case. The court also imposed a cost of ₹10 lakh on the Uttar Pradesh government for its illegal action. The bench, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nag, set aside an Allahabad High Court judgment that had upheld Afroz's detention under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980.
Legal scrutiny
Legality of preventive detention order questioned
The Supreme Court bench questioned the legality of a preventive detention order based solely on a confession made in police custody.
While pronouncing the judgment, Justice Datta dedicated the judgment to his late law clerk, who died before turning 27.
The court had earlier asked if such a confession could satisfy the "subjective satisfaction" needed for a preventive detention order.
Case background
Afroz was arrested after 54 days of violence
Afroz was arrested around 54 days after the Sambhal violence, allegedly based on a confession made in police custody.
He was later granted bail by the Allahabad High Court but was detained under the NSA on October 13, 2025.
The High Court upheld this detention order, prompting Afroz to approach the Supreme Court for relief.
Legal arguments
Argument before Supreme Court
Before the Supreme Court, Afroz argued that his arrest was based on an inadmissible custodial confession.
He contended that multiple criminal cases alone can't justify preventive detention without a bona fide and informed subjective satisfaction based on sufficient material.
The court reiterated that mere possibility of re-offending without cogent material cannot justify preventive detention.
Rejected defense
UP government's defense in the matter
The Uttar Pradesh government had defended the detention order on grounds of "likelihood" of Afroz causing violence or affecting public order.
However, the Supreme Court held that a preventive detention order under NSA cannot be sustained solely on confession statements before police.
The court emphasized that other surrounding circumstances must be considered in such cases.