Supreme Court Quashes NSA Detention Of Sambhal Violence Accused, Imposes Rs 10 Lakh Cost On UP Govt
Gursimran Kaur Bakshi
29 Sept 2026 10:43 AM IST
The Supreme Court today(September 29) quashed the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz, accused of being the mastermind of the 2024 Sambhal violence, under the National Security Act, 1980. It set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had upheld the detention order.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that the Uttar Pradesh government couldn't have passed orders on preventive detention based on a confession allegedly made by Afroz in police custody. It has imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakh on the government for passing the illegal preventive detention order.
While pronouncing the order, Justice Datta paid tribute to his law clerk who passed away before his 27th birthday. Justice Datta dedicated the judgment to him.
It may be recalled that while reserving orders on September 8, the bench had 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 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.
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.
Case: Mulla Afroz v. Union of India & Ors. | SLP(Crl) No. 012534 / 2026
