In a significant ruling setting strict constitutional boundaries on administrative detention, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that a confessional statement recorded by the police cannot, by itself, form the subjective satisfaction required to sustain an order of preventive detention. Setting aside an order of the Allahabad High Court, the apex court quashed the detention and confirmation orders passed under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA) against Sambhal violence accused Mulla Afroz, directed his forthwith release, and slapped costs of Rs. 10 lakh on the State of Uttar Pradesh after finding that preventive detention had been used punitively to subvert judicial bail orders.
Background of the Case
The case traces back to an incident that took place on November 24, 2024, during a court-mandated survey of a mosque in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh. Violence broke out during the survey, leading to the death of four persons. An FIR, registered as Case Crime No. 333 of 2024, was lodged on the same day, followed by multiple other connected FIRs (Case Crime Nos. 306, 337, 338, 339, and 340 of 2024).
Although the appellant, Mulla Afroz, was not named in the initial FIR (Case Crime No. 333 of 2024), he was arrested 54 days later, on January 17, 2025, and taken into custody across the other connected cases. The police alleged that during custody, Afroz made a confessional statement leading to the recovery of a .32 bore pistol, even though medical evidence showed that the victims died of .315 bore bullet injuries.
On September 9, 2025, Afroz was granted bail by the High Court in Case Crime No. 340 of 2024. While he remained in judicial custody in the remaining cases, the District Magistrate, Sambhal, passed a preventive detention order on October 13, 2025, under Section 3(2) of the NSA. Afroz’s representation against the detention order was rejected by the detaining authority on October 31, 2025, on grounds of delay, and subsequent representations before the State and Central Governments were also rejected.
Following a report by the Advisory Board, the Uttar Pradesh Government confirmed the detention under Section 12 of the NSA on November 28, 2025, extending it for 12 months. By June 2026, Afroz had secured bail from the High Court in every criminal case registered against him. He then approached the Allahabad High Court via a habeas corpus writ petition seeking to quash the detention and confirmation orders. On June 8, 2026, a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate was based on relevant objective materials and did not warrant judicial interference. Afroz subsequently appealed the decision before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the appellant, advocate Divyesh Pratap Singh contended that the material referenced in the detention order was never supplied to the detenu, directly violating Article 22 of the Constitution and statutory safeguards under the NSA. He submitted that the detention order was resorted to solely to thwart the appellant’s release after he was granted bail, relying on Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana and Annu @ Aniket v. Union of India.
Counsel argued that the existence of multiple pending cases per se does not justify preventive detention without cogent material showing a direct nexus with disturbance of public order, citing Vijay Kumar Rajpoot @ Vijju v. State of Chhattisgarh, Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, and Roshini Devi v. State of Telangana. Furthermore, the foundation of the detention order was an extra-judicial confession extracted through torture and threats of murder in violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which rendered it legally inadmissible under Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi v. State of Manipur. He also relied on Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar to submit that the allegations at most constituted a law-and-order situation rather than a breach of public order, and asserted a violation of Article 21.
Opposing the appeal, Additional Solicitor General Nataraj, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the appellant’s actions caused widespread disturbance of public order, resulting in four deaths, injuries to police personnel, and the shutdown of internet and essential services, squarely attracting Section 3(2) of the NSA under the principles in Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal.
The State argued that the pendency of criminal cases or release on bail is no bar to preventive detention under Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal and Kamarunnisa v. Union of India. Relying on Aruna Kumari v. Govt. of A.P., State of Punjab v. Sukhpal, and Khatri (IV) v. State of Bihar, the ASG asserted that judicial review of the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction is minimal and that a confessional statement before the police can validly form the basis of a detention order, as held by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Suman v. State of Tamil Nadu. It was further argued that when an order is based on multiple grounds, the invalidity of one ground does not invalidate the entire detention.
The Court’s Analysis
The bench formulated two primary issues: first, whether an order of preventive detention can be based on an extra-judicial confession; and second, whether the material relied upon by the detaining authority was legally valid and compliant with constitutional and statutory safeguards.
Addressing the admissibility and use of police confessions, the court examined the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and statutory exclusion under Section 23 of the BSA. The bench reviewed previous rulings in Aruna Kumari, Senthamilselvi v. State of T.N., Khatri (IV), and E. Subbulakshmi v. State of Tamil Nadu, noting that observations in Aruna Kumari and Senthamilselvi were obiter dicta because the detention orders in those matters were not challenged on the ground of being based on confessions. Referring to Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, the bench reiterated that confessions made in police custody are inherently suspect and excluded from evidence due to coercive vulnerability.
Testing the proposition on legal principle, the bench held:
“Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that a confessional statement made before a police officer cannot, by itself, and in the absence of any independent material lending support thereto, constitute a basis for forming the subjective satisfaction necessary to sustain an order of preventive detention.”
The Court explicitly overruled the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Suman v. State of Tamil Nadu to the extent it held that a police confession could justify detention, noting that Suman lacked the benefit of the later ruling in Kartar Singh. The bench reiterated:
“At the same time, we reiterate that a mere confessional statement of the detenu (without any other substantive grounds or material) cannot be relied on as the sole ground for passing an order of detention.”
The bench then turned to examine the remaining material relied upon by the District Magistrate to ascertain if an independent basis existed under the review principles articulated in Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi and Ameena Begum. The examination revealed major evidentiary gaps:
- Undisclosed CCTV and Video Recordings: While the grounds asserted that CCTV footage and video recordings established the appellant as the principal architect inciting the crowd, these recordings were not included among the 22 documents relied upon or supplied to the appellant, nor placed before the courts. The bench also questioned why, if such footage existed contemporaneously, it took the investigating agency 54 days to arrest him.
- Unsubstantiated Mobile Communications: The detention order alleged mobile communications between the appellant and a person named “Boss” to orchestrate killings. However, the order itself stated that the phone data was erased and not retrieved, and no messages or phone analysis formed part of the relied-upon documents.
- Filing of Chargesheet: The detaining authority treated the filing of a chargesheet in Case Crime No. 337 of 2024 as conclusive proof of the appellant’s involvement and disturbance of public order. The Supreme Court rejected this, holding that a chargesheet is only an investigative opinion and at best raises suspicion, not proof of guilt.
- Subversion of Judicial Bail Orders: The detaining authority cited secret jail intelligence alleging that the appellant, having moved for bail, planned to cause violence upon release. The bench disapproved of this reasoning, relying on Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar and Annu @ Aniket, observing:
“What is evident therefrom is that the impugned detention is an attempt to frustrate the judicial order granting bail, and to keep the detenu in custody by another route. Such a detention is not preventive but punitive and appears intended to subvert the order granting bail.”
The Court acknowledged the Constitution Bench judgment in Haradhan Saha, affirming that criminal prosecution does not bar preventive detention. However, the bench underscored that when detention is invoked on the very same facts and investigation material as an ongoing prosecution where bail has been granted, it demands a higher degree of scrutiny to prevent blurring the line between preventive and punitive jurisdictions. Citing Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, the court held:
“If an order of detention is sought to be justified as a preventive measure, the material relied upon must demonstrably establish the necessity of preventing future prejudicial conduct and not merely reinforce allegations which already form the subject matter of an ongoing criminal prosecution.”
The Decision
Holding that the required nexus between the material and the recorded subjective satisfaction was conspicuously absent, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, and quashed the detention order dated October 13, 2025, and confirmation order dated November 28, 2025.
The Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith, unless required in connection with any other case.
Observing that the detention period of one year was on the verge of expiring despite the appellant securing bail in all cases, the bench observed:
“In such circumstances, the process was made the punishment.”
Consequently, the Court ordered the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay costs of Rs. 10 lakh to the appellant within one month. The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the pending criminal cases, which will proceed independently under ordinary law.
Case Title: Mulla Afroz v. Union of India and Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 4310 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12534 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
Date: September 29, 2026
