Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Uttar Pradesh government on whether a preventive detention order under the National Security Act can be passed on the basis of a confession allegedly made by a person in police custody, in a petition challenging the detention of a man in the aftermath of the November 2024 Sambhal violence.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu reserved order on the on the plea by Mulla Afroz, accused of being the mastermind of the 2024 Sambhal violence, challenging this preventive detention under the National Security Act.

The Court questioned the relevance and value of the alleged custodial confession and asked whether such a confession can form the basis of the “subjective satisfaction” required for passing a preventive detention order.  

The petitioner, Mulla Afroz, is an accused in the Sambhal violence that followed a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid, in which four persons died. He was arrested around 54 days after the incident, allegedly on the basis of a confession made while in police custody.

Although he was subsequently granted bail by the Allahabad High Court, a detention order was passed against him on October 13, 2025, under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA). The detention order was subsequently upheld by the High Court, prompting the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the police had themselves opened fire during the violence and that this aspect had not been fairly investigated. He sought liberty to file a protest petition in this regard.

He further argued that his arrest was based on a confession made in police custody, which is inadmissible in law. On the preventive detention issue, he submitted that the mere existence of multiple criminal cases cannot, by itself, justify detention and that a bona fide and informed subjective satisfaction, based on sufficient material, is necessary.

Reliance was placed on Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana to contend that a mere possibility of the detenue becoming involved in crime again, without cogent material supporting such an apprehension, cannot furnish a valid basis for preventive detention.

Bench questions reliance on custodial confession

During the hearing, Justice Datta posed a series of questions concerning the material relied upon by the detaining authority.

The Bench specifically questioned whether a detention order could be passed on the basis of a confession made in police custody. Reiterating the requirement of subjective satisfaction based on facts, the Bench also questioned whether such a confession could itself be treated as a “fact” for the purpose of arriving at the requisite satisfaction.

The Bench further questioned an apparent contradiction in the State's case. While the respondent claimed that the petitioner had deleted messages from his mobile phone, it also relied upon an alleged message to contend that he had participated in the events.

The Court questioned how the alleged message was procured if the petitioner had deleted the messages.

The Bench also asked whether a “strong possibility of recreating an atmosphere of terror” would, by itself, constitute sufficient material to justify a preventive detention order.

State relies on likelihood of future violence

Defending the detention order, the State relied on the “likelihood” of the petitioner causing violence or affecting public order. It was contended that if the material available demonstrates such likelihood, it would be sufficient to justify preventive detention.

On the custodial confession, the respondent argued that whether the confession was relevant or irrelevant was a matter to be considered in the appropriate legal proceedings.

The Bench, however, questioned this submission in light of the fact that the confession allegedly formed the basis of the detention order.

Justice Datta remarked:

“Detention order is preventive, not punitive and it cannot be invoked as a mantra to be invoked before the court to defeat every challenge. Therefore, there has to be some material on the basis of which you are subjectively satisfied. Your entire detention order is based on the confession.”

Court questions 54-day delay in arrest

Justice Datta also questioned why the petitioner was arrested and made an accused 54 days after the alleged incident, particularly when CCTV footage was available from the first day of the incident.

The Bench questioned why the CCTV footage was not being referred to in support of the detention order.

Referring to Ameena Begum, Justice Datta orally reiterated that preventive detention is not a judicial function but an administrative discretion, which must be exercised in accordance with the applicable guidelines. Where there are no such guidelines, the authority must “be reasonable and fair,” he observed.

“Is this the way you pass a detention order?” Justice Datta questioned during the hearing.

The Bench has asked the respondent to file its reply tomorrow morning on whether a confession made in custody can be relied upon for passing a preventive detention order.

Case: Mulla Afroz v. Union of India & Ors. | SLP(Crl) No. 012534 / 2026

Appearance:

For Petitioner: Deepak Singh, AOR; Mr Divyesh Pratap Singh, Adv.; Mr Vikas Srivastava, Adv.; Ms Tanvi Saran, Adv.; Ms. Sonal Kushwah, Adv.; Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent: Mr KM Nataraj, ASG; Mr Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Sr AAG; Mr Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR; Ms Ruchira Goel, AOR; Ms Nachiketa Joshi, Adv.; Ms Medha Pushkarna, Adv.; Ms Mrigna Shekhar, Adv.; Mr Anuj Udupa, Adv.; Mr Ishaan Sharma, Adv.; Dr Arun Kumar Yadav, Adv.; Ms Indira Bhakar, Adv.; Mr Anuj Udupa, Adv.; Ms Krithi Ballal, Adv.; Mr Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv.

Tags: