NEW DELHI, Sept 29: The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that a confession statement made by an accused cannot, by itself, provide the basis for preventive detention under the National Security Act (NSA).
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu quashed the preventive detention order issued against Mulla Afroz, who had been detained under the stringent law in connection with the 2024 communal violence in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal.
The court also imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on the government, describing the preventive detention order as illegal.
The Uttar Pradesh Police had invoked the NSA against Afroz in October 2025 over his alleged involvement in the violence that erupted in Sambhal in November 2024. The Supreme Court’s ruling came while examining the legality of the detention.
Justice Datta, while delivering the judgment, also remembered his law clerk, who died four days before turning 27. The detailed reasoning behind the court’s decision is awaited.
The judgment concerns the limits on the use of preventive detention powers under the NSA. Unlike ordinary criminal proceedings, preventive detention is intended to prevent a person from engaging in activities considered harmful to specified interests rather than to punish them for an offence already established in court.
The NSA permits the Centre and state governments to order detention in circumstances where authorities believe an individual may act in a manner prejudicial to the defence of India, India’s relations with foreign powers, national security or the maintenance of essential supplies and services, among other grounds specified under the law.
A detention order can generally remain in force for up to 12 months, subject to the statutory safeguards and review mechanisms provided under the Act. It can, however, be revoked before the completion of that period.
Preventive detention under the NSA follows a process distinct from a conventional criminal arrest. A detention order may be issued by the appropriate government or, in certain circumstances, by a specially empowered district magistrate or commissioner of police. Such an order is subject to review by an advisory board as prescribed by law.
The framework has long been subject to judicial scrutiny because preventive detention allows authorities to restrict a person’s liberty without waiting for the conclusion of a criminal trial. The Constitution and the NSA provide safeguards governing communication of detention grounds, representation by the detainee and review of the detention by an advisory board.
The Supreme Court’s latest ruling places emphasis on the evidentiary basis required when authorities exercise those preventive powers. Its finding that a confession statement cannot form the basis of detention is significant in the context of cases where material gathered during a criminal investigation is subsequently relied upon to justify preventive detention.
The case arose against the backdrop of violence in Sambhal following a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid.
Tensions escalated on November 24, 2024, when the second phase of the survey was being conducted. The exercise followed claims that a Harihar temple had previously existed at the site of the mosque.
Protesters gathered during the survey and clashes broke out between local residents and security personnel. Four people were killed and dozens of others were injured in the violence.
The incident led to heightened security measures and a series of investigations and legal proceedings. Authorities subsequently invoked various criminal provisions against people accused of participating in the unrest.
Afroz’s detention under the NSA came nearly a year after the violence. The preventive detention order issued in October 2025 was challenged before the courts, eventually bringing the question of its legal foundation before the Supreme Court.
The court’s decision to set aside the detention means that the particular preventive detention order against Afroz cannot continue. The ruling also underscores the distinction between criminal prosecution and preventive detention: material used to investigate or prosecute an alleged offence must satisfy the legal requirements applicable to the separate exercise of preventive detention powers.
The Rs 10 lakh cost imposed by the bench adds a further consequence for the authorities in the case. The measure reflects the court’s conclusion that the detention order could not legally stand.
The ruling is expected to be examined closely because the NSA gives governments wide preventive powers while simultaneously requiring compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards. Courts have repeatedly emphasised that personal liberty cannot be curtailed through preventive detention without adherence to the conditions laid down by law.
The Supreme Court’s detailed judgment, which was not immediately available, is expected to set out the reasoning behind its conclusion and clarify the extent to which a confession statement can be relied upon in proceedings involving preventive detention.
For now, the judgment establishes the central finding that an accused person’s confession statement cannot serve as the foundation for detention under the NSA in the circumstances considered by the bench.
The ruling comes amid continuing legal proceedings arising from the Sambhal violence, keeping questions surrounding the use of preventive detention and the protection of individual liberty under judicial scrutiny.