New Delhi, September 29, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court has quashed the preventive detention of Uttar Pradesh cleric Mulla Afroz under the National Security Act (NSA) in connection with the 2024 Sambhal violence case, ruling that a confession made before a police officer cannot, by itself and without independent supporting material, form the basis for preventive detention.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu set aside the Allahabad High Court judgment that had upheld Afroz’s detention, along with the detention and confirmation orders. The court directed that he be released forthwith unless his custody was required in any other case.
The apex court also imposed costs of ₹10 lakh on the Uttar Pradesh government, directing it to pay the amount to Afroz within one month of the judgment.
The case stems from violence that erupted during a survey of a mosque in Sambhal on November 24, 2024, leaving four people dead. Afroz was not named in the FIR registered on the day of the incident but was arrested around 54 days later, on January 17, 2025, in connection with other FIRs.
During his custody, an extra-judicial confessional statement was recorded, and a .32-bore pistol was stated to have been recovered. Afroz was granted bail in one of the cases in September 2025. Subsequently, the Sambhal District Magistrate issued an NSA detention order against him on October 13, 2025. The state government later confirmed his detention for a further period of 12 months.
By June 2026, Afroz had secured bail in all criminal cases arising from the incident.
Police Confession Cannot Alone Justify Preventive Detention
The Supreme Court considered whether preventive detention could be based on an extra-judicial confession and whether constitutional and statutory safeguards under the NSA had been followed.
The Bench held that a confession made before a police officer, particularly when the person concerned had consistently alleged that it was obtained through threats and torture, could not independently establish the subjective satisfaction required to sustain preventive detention.
“Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that a confessional statement made before a police officer cannot, by itself, and in the absence of any independent material lending support thereto, constitute a basis for forming the subjective satisfaction necessary to sustain an order of preventive detention,” the Justice Datta-led Bench observed.
The court referred to Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, under which police confessions are treated with suspicion, and also considered the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).
It observed that if a confession was considered too tainted to be admitted as evidence to establish guilt, its use as a substantive basis for preventive detention would require “a deeper scrutiny”.
The Bench clarified, however, that where a detention authority relies on material independent of a confession, the validity of the detention must be assessed on the basis of that material.
Multiple Criminal Cases Not Enough to Justify Detention
The Supreme Court also held that the existence of multiple criminal cases, by itself, could not justify preventive detention without “cogent and reliable material”.
It emphasised that preventive detention curtails personal liberty not as punishment for acts already committed, but to prevent conduct apprehended in the future.
“Preventive detention has always been regarded as an exceptional measure,” the court said, adding that it must be invoked “with the utmost circumspection”.
The Bench further observed that material cited to justify preventive detention must establish the necessity of preventing future prejudicial conduct. It should not merely reinforce allegations that are already the subject of ongoing criminal proceedings.
At the same time, the apex court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the criminal cases against Afroz, which would continue in accordance with the law.
Court Says ‘Process Was Made the Punishment’
Setting aside the detention and confirmation orders, the Supreme Court noted that Afroz’s detention order was issued on October 13, 2025, and confirmed on November 28, 2025, for a period of one year.
The Bench observed that Afroz had already suffered a considerable loss of liberty despite having secured bail in all the criminal cases related to the incident.
“In such circumstances, the process was made the punishment,” the court remarked.
Allowing Afroz’s appeal, the Supreme Court quashed the Allahabad High Court judgment and the orders sustaining his preventive detention. It directed his immediate release, unless required in another case, and ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹10 lakh in costs within one month.
FOLLOW NOW
