Supreme Court: NSA Detention Cannot Rely Solely on Confession in Sambhal Mosque Violence Case

The Supreme Court has quashed the preventive detention of a man accused in the 2024 Sambhal violence case, ruling that a confession allegedly made to police cannot, by itself, form the basis for detention under the National Security Act (NSA). A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu set aside the detention order against Mulla Afroz and directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay him ₹10 lakh in costs. The case relates to violence that broke out in Sambhal on November 24, 2024, following a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. Four people were killed in the violence.

Afroz was arrested in January 2025 in connection with cases arising from the incident. He was subsequently granted bail, but the Sambhal district authorities later invoked the NSA against him. The authorities relied on several materials while passing the preventive detention order, including a confession allegedly recorded during police custody. The Supreme Court, however, held that a confession made to a police officer could not independently provide the foundation for the subjective satisfaction required to order preventive detention.

The bench also examined the circumstances in which the statement was allegedly recorded and the other material relied upon by the authorities. The Court emphasised that preventive detention is intended to prevent a person from engaging in activities considered harmful to public order or national security. It cannot be used simply as a substitute for criminal punishment.

The judges also considered the fact that Afroz had already secured bail in the criminal cases against him before the NSA detention order was issued. The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the detention order, the subsequent confirmation of the detention and the Allahabad High Courts decision upholding it. The Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹10 lakh to Afroz within one month. It also ordered his release unless he was required to remain in custody in connection with another case.

The ruling underlines the safeguards that authorities must follow while invoking preventive detention laws, particularly when the person concerned is already facing criminal proceedings. It also highlights the need for detention orders to be supported by legally sustainable material rather than relying solely on statements allegedly obtained during police custody.

Disclaimer: This image is taken from Hindustan Times.