The Supreme Court on 29 September quashed the preventive detention of Uttar Pradesh cleric Mulla Afroz under the National Security Act (NSA), holding that a confessional statement recorded before a police officer cannot, by itself and without independent corroborating material, form the legal basis for preventive detention. The apex court also imposed costs of ₹10 lakh on the Uttar Pradesh government, payable to Afroz within one month, in connection with the 2024 Sambhal violence case.

Background: How the Detention Arose

The case stems from violence that erupted during a court-ordered survey of a mosque in Sambhal on 24 November 2024, in which four persons died. Afroz was not named in the First Information Report (FIR) registered on the day of the incident. He was arrested approximately 54 days later, on 17 January 2025, in connection with separate FIRs. During his custody, an extra-judicial confessional statement was recorded and a .32 bore pistol was reportedly recovered.

After being granted bail in one of the cases in September 2025, the Sambhal District Magistrate issued an NSA detention order on 13 October 2025. The state government subsequently confirmed the detention for a further period of 12 months on 28 November 2025. By June 2026, Afroz had secured bail in all criminal cases arising from the incident.

What the Supreme Court Ruled

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu set aside both the Allahabad High Court judgment that had upheld the detention order and the detention and confirmation orders themselves, directing that Afroz be released forthwith unless required in any other case. The Bench identified two core questions: whether preventive detention could rest on an extra-judicial confession, and whether constitutional and statutory procedural safeguards had been followed.

On the first question, the court held that Afroz had consistently alleged the confession was obtained through threats and torture, and that in the absence of independent supporting material, such a statement could not constitute the 'subjective satisfaction' required to sustain a detention order. Justice Datta, writing for the Bench, stated: '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 court further noted that a police confession is treated with suspicion under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam and must be tested against the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). It observed that if such a confession is considered too tainted to be received as evidence for proving guilt, its use as a substantive basis for preventive detention would demand 'a deeper scrutiny.'

Broader Legal Principles Laid Down

The Bench clarified that where a detention authority relies on material beyond a confessional statement, the validity of detention must be assessed on the basis of that independent material alone. It also held that the mere existence of multiple criminal cases cannot justify preventive detention unless supported by 'cogent and reliable material.' The court underscored that preventive detention is an exceptional measure directed not at punishing past conduct but at preventing apprehended future prejudicial activity, and must be invoked 'with the utmost circumspection.'

Notably, the court drew a sharp distinction between preventive detention and criminal prosecution, ruling that the material relied upon to justify detention must establish the necessity of preventing future harm — and must not merely restate allegations already being pursued in ongoing criminal cases. The apex court made clear it was expressing no view on the merits of those criminal proceedings, which will continue in accordance with law.

Costs and the Court's Rebuke

Observing that the detention order was passed on 13 October 2025 and confirmed on 28 November 2025 for one year, the court noted that Afroz had already suffered considerable deprivation of liberty despite having secured bail in all related cases. 'In such circumstances, the process was made the punishment,' the Bench said, allowing the appeal and directing both Afroz's immediate release and the payment of ₹10 lakh in costs by the state government within one month.

The ruling is likely to have wider implications for how state governments invoke the NSA in cases where criminal proceedings are already underway, and where confessional statements form the primary evidentiary basis for detention orders.