SC Quashes NSA for Sambhal Violence Accused, Fines UP Government ₹10 Lakh
Supreme Court quashes NSA detention of Sambhal violence accused, fines UP government ₹10 lakh.
advertisement
The Supreme Court of India has quashed the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz, accused in the 2024 Sambhal violence case, and imposed a ₹10 lakh fine on the Uttar Pradesh government. The bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, found that the state authorities relied on a confession made in police custody to justify the National Security Act (NSA) detention, which the court ruled was not legally permissible. The Allahabad High Court’s earlier decision upholding the detention was also set aside.
According to Deccan Herald, the Supreme Court held that a confession recorded in police custody cannot form the basis of a preventive detention order. The court found that the Uttar Pradesh government acted illegally by relying on the alleged custodial confession to reach the subjective satisfaction required under the NSA. The bench dedicated the judgment to a law clerk who had passed away before his 27th birthday.
As reported by Scroll, the violence in Sambhal erupted on 24 November 2024 after objections were raised to a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. The incident resulted in multiple deaths, with locals alleging that several were killed in police firing. Mulla Afroz was arrested nearly two months after the violence and detained under the NSA on 13 October 2025, based on a confession made while in police custody.
As highlighted by The Hindu, the Supreme Court found that the detaining authorities failed to consider relevant material before depriving Afroz of his liberty. The court stated, “The power of detention was illegally exercised by the authorities. The detaining authorities did not consider the appropriate material.” The bench also noted that the confessional statement could not, by itself, justify preventive detention.
“Confessional statement cannot be the sole ground for detention, surrounding circumstances have to be looked into,” the bench observed during the proceedings.
As noted in an article by The Indian Express, Afroz challenged the detention order before the Allahabad High Court, arguing that his confession was made under duress and was inadmissible in law. The High Court had upheld the detention, stating that the order was based on proper application of mind and sufficient material. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, finding the reliance on the custodial confession improper.
Further details indicate that the NSA allows authorities to detain a person without trial for up to a year, but the Supreme Court questioned whether the alleged confession could form the basis for the “subjective satisfaction” needed for preventive detention. The bench had previously raised concerns about the evidentiary value of such confessions.
The sequence of events, as outlined, shows that Afroz was arrested in January 2025, granted bail by the High Court, but remained detained under the NSA. The Supreme Court’s decision focused solely on the legality of the preventive detention, not the underlying criminal allegations.
“We quash the detention order, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and impose costs of ₹10 lakh on the State of Uttar Pradesh for passing the illegal detention order,” the bench stated in open court.
Analysis showed that the forensic report contradicted the police’s claims regarding the weapon allegedly recovered from Afroz, further weakening the grounds for his detention. The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasised the need for concrete material and genuine subjective satisfaction before invoking preventive detention laws.
The broader context, as coverage revealed, includes allegations of excessive force by police during the Sambhal violence and subsequent crackdowns. The Supreme Court’s judgment has been seen as a significant check on the misuse of preventive detention powers by state authorities.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.