Supreme Court Quashes NSA Detention of Sambhal Riots Accused, Slams Reliance on Police Confession, Court says preventive detention cannot rest on an alleged confession before police, especially when unsupported by independent material and used to keep an accused in custody after bail.
The Supreme Court has set aside the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz under the National Security Act, 1980, holding that the detention order was legally unsustainable because it was substantially based on an alleged extra-judicial confession made before police officials. The Court ruled that such a confession, particularly when the detenu consistently claimed it was extracted by torture and threats, cannot by itself form the basis of the “subjective satisfaction” required for preventive detention.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu allowed the appeal and quashed both the detention order dated October 13, 2025 and the State Government’s confirmation order dated November 28, 2025. The Court directed that Afroz be released forthwith unless required in any other case, and also imposed costs of Rs. 10 lakh on the State.
The case arose from violence during a mosque survey in Sambhal on November 24, 2024, in which four people died and multiple FIRs were registered. Afroz was arrested later and, according to the prosecution, made a confession leading to recovery of a .32 bore pistol. Although he was granted bail in one case in September 2025 and later in all connected cases, the District Magistrate invoked Section 3(2) of the NSA and ordered his preventive detention.
The Supreme Court held that the confession before police was not voluntary and could not be treated as reliable material. Referring to Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the Court said a confession made to police is inherently suspect and legally irrelevant unless supported by independent corroborative material. Since the State failed to rebut Afroz’s claim of coercion, the confession could not justify detention.
The Court also found serious flaws in the other grounds relied upon by the detaining authority. It noted that crucial CCTV footage, video recordings and alleged mobile communications were described as the basis of the detention, but these materials were neither supplied to the detenu nor produced before the Court. The Bench said reliance on undisclosed material was impermissible and that a mere filing of chargesheet did not establish guilt or prove disturbance of public order.
On the issue of bail, the Court said the detention appeared designed to frustrate the judicial orders granting release and to continue custody through preventive detention rather than the ordinary criminal process. It observed that preventive detention cannot be used to “clip the wings” of an accused or to impose a punitive consequence under the guise of prevention. The Bench stressed that the existence of multiple criminal cases is not, by itself, enough to justify detention.
The Court further clarified the distinction between law and order and public order, but said it was not necessary to decide that issue in detail because the detention order already failed on the core legal grounds. It concluded that there was no valid nexus between the material relied upon and the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority.
In a strong reaffirmation of liberty protections, the Supreme Court said preventive detention is an exceptional power and must be used with utmost circumspection. Finding that the High Court had erred in upholding the detention, the Bench set aside the judgment and the detention orders, and ordered Afroz’s immediate release.
Bottom Line:
Preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980 cannot be sustained when it is founded on an extra-judicial confession allegedly made before police, without independent corroborative material. A confession made before police, especially when alleged to be obtained by threat or torture, is legally irrelevant for forming subjective satisfaction for preventive detention. Preventive detention also cannot be used to frustrate bail orders or as a substitute for ordinary criminal process.
Statutory provision(s): National Security Act, 1980 Section 3(2), National Security Act, 1980 Sections 8 and 12, Constitution of India Articles 20(3), 21 and 22(5), Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Section 23
Mulla Afroz v. Union of India, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2988297
