The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz, an alleged key conspirator in the November 2024 Sambhal violence, ruling that the state’s invocation of the National Security Act against him was impermissibly founded on a confession made in police custody.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu set aside a June 8, 2026 ruling by the Allahabad High Court that had sustained the detention order. Alongside invalidating the detention, the apex court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay a cost of Rs 10 lakh.
Detention Relied on Custodial Statement
The Supreme Court accepted the detenu’s argument that the detention order was legally flawed because it relied upon an extra-judicial confession obtained by police officers while he was in their custody.
Afroz had challenged the measure on grounds that the purported admission was extracted through physical torture and threats of an encounter, rendering the statement inadmissible in the eyes of the law.
Background to the Sambhal Violence
The case originates from violent clashes in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal district in November 2024, which erupted while a court-appointed team was conducting a survey of the local Jama Masjid. Four people died in the ensuing unrest.
State law enforcement arrested Afroz on January 17, 2025. Several months later, on October 13, 2025, the District Magistrate of Sambhal issued an order detaining him under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, while he was already remanded in judicial custody.
In their filings, authorities characterized Afroz as the principal instigator of the unrest. The prosecution claimed that his incitement provoked widespread mob violence and arson, forcing shopkeepers to pull down shutters, causing panicked shoppers to flee, and completely upending public order across Sambhal city and adjacent localities.
Previous High Court Judgment Overruled
The apex court’s ruling nullifies the earlier position taken by the Allahabad High Court, which had validated the administrative detention.
In its June 8 judgment, the high court had determined that the Sambhal district magistrate had exercised proper jurisdiction and demonstrated adequate application of mind. The high court had ruled that the administration’s subjective satisfaction that Afroz needed to be kept in preventive custody to safeguard public order was legally tenable and grounded in objective facts.
The high court had also highlighted that authorities had provided 22 supporting documents to Afroz, showing the detention was not arbitrary or unreasoned. It had noted that the material placed on record indicated widespread arson, injuries to multiple police personnel, and the recovery of incriminating arms, concluding that the situation crossed the threshold from a routine law-and-order infraction to a direct threat to public order.
The Supreme Court rejected that reasoning, bringing an end to Afroz’s preventive custody under the Act.
