Can’t Detain Under National Security Act Based on Confession: Supreme Court on Sambhal Mosque Violence Case

The Supreme Court has ruled that a custodial confession cannot, by itself, form the basis for preventive detention under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980. The ruling came while hearing a petition filed by Mulla Afroz, an accused in the violence that followed a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal in November 2024.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu set aside the preventive detention order issued against Afroz by the Sambhal district magistrate in October 2025. The court also imposed a ₹10 lakh cost on the Uttar Pradesh government, directing that the amount be paid to Afroz within a month.

What did the Supreme Court say?

The court held that a confession made before a police officer cannot, in the absence of independent supporting material, provide the basis for the “subjective satisfaction” required to sustain a preventive detention order.

The bench noted that preventive detention is intended to prevent future threats and cannot be used as a punitive measure. It observed that the detention order in the case had assumed a character that was more punitive than preventive.

The judgment also referred to constitutional protection against self-incrimination and the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam concerning confessions made to police officers.

Who is Mulla Afroz?

Afroz was accused in connection with the violence that erupted in Sambhal on November 24, 2024, after a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. Four people were killed during the clashes.

According to the reports before the Supreme Court, Afroz was arrested nearly two months after the incident. He was subsequently granted bail in the connected criminal cases, but the Sambhal district magistrate passed an NSA detention order against him on October 13, 2025. The order was later confirmed by the state government.

Custodial confession under scrutiny

Afroz's lawyers argued before the Supreme Court that the alleged confession had been obtained while he was in police custody and that he had been tortured and threatened.

The state government defended the preventive detention by referring to material that it said indicated a likelihood of Afroz becoming involved in violence or affecting public order in the future.

The Supreme Court, however, found that the confession could not be treated as sufficient material on its own. The court also noted that the authorities had relied on substantially the same material in the criminal and preventive-detention proceedings.

Court stresses difference between preventive and punitive detention

The bench said that when a person is already in custody and preventive detention is subsequently invoked, authorities must examine the detention order with particular care.

The court also noted that Afroz had already obtained bail in September 2025, making that circumstance relevant to the authority's decision to subsequently invoke preventive detention.

The Supreme Court described preventive detention as an exceptional measure that must be exercised with caution and only when the circumstances genuinely warrant it.

₹10 lakh cost imposed on Uttar Pradesh

While quashing the detention order, the Supreme Court imposed a ₹10 lakh cost on the Uttar Pradesh government. The court said the authorities had illegally exercised their detention power and that Afroz had already suffered a considerable loss of liberty.

The ruling does not amount to a final determination of guilt or innocence in the underlying Sambhal violence cases. It specifically concerns the legality of the NSA preventive detention order against Afroz.

The judgment thus draws a distinction between prosecution for an alleged offence and preventive detention, emphasising that the latter requires legally sustainable material and cannot rest solely on a custodial confession.