New Delhi [India], September 29 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that an extra-judicial confession cannot be the sole basis for preventive detention under the National Security Act (NSA), quashed the detention of Mulla Afroz in the Sambhal violence case and imposed costs of Rs 10 lakh on the Uttar Pradesh government.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu allowed Afroz’s appeal, holding that while an extra-judicial confession may constitute relevant material, the detaining authority must also consider other relevant circumstances before arriving at the satisfaction required to order preventive detention.
The Court found that the detaining authority had failed to take such factors into consideration in Afroz’s case and had therefore wrongly exercised the power of preventive detention.
The case relates to Afroz’s detention under Section 3(2) of the NSA in connection with the violence that broke out in Sambhal in November 2024 during a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid.
Afroz was arrested by Sambhal police on January 17, 2025, in connection with cases arising from the violence. The District Magistrate subsequently passed an NSA detention order against him on October 13, 2025. The State Government later confirmed the detention.
Afroz challenged the detention before the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the material relied upon by the authorities was insufficient and that the case against him substantially rested on an alleged extra-judicial confession.
The State opposed the plea and relied on the material collected during the investigation. It alleged that Afroz was involved in instigating the crowd during the violence and that his activities had the potential to disturb public order.
The Allahabad High Court had upheld the detention. It recorded that the detaining authority had considered the material placed before it and that the documents relied upon for the detention had been supplied to Afroz.
The High Court had also held that while exercising judicial review over a preventive detention order, the court was required to examine whether the detaining authority had applied its mind to relevant material rather than sit in appeal over the sufficiency of that material.
The Supreme Court, however, found that the detention could not be sustained on the material considered by the authority.
The bench considered whether an extra-judicial confession could form the basis of a preventive detention order and whether the material relied upon by the detaining authority was legally sufficient. (ANI)
The Court held that an extra-judicial confession cannot, by itself, justify preventive detention. Other relevant and substantive circumstances must also be considered by the detaining authority before exercising the power.
In Afroz’s case, the Court found that the authority had failed to take such factors into account and had consequently exercised the power for a purpose not supported by the material before it.
The Supreme Court therefore quashed the detention order and allowed Afroz’s appeal.
It also imposed costs of Rs 10 lakh on the Uttar Pradesh government. (ANI)
Related reading
