Supreme Court Slams UP Govt Over Illegal NSA Detention, Quashes Arrests and Slaps ₹10 Lakh Fine

The Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz, accused in the 2024 Sambhal violence case, under the National Security Act and slapped a ₹10 lakh cost on the Uttar Pradesh government for issuing an illegal detention order based on an inadmissible police confession.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu set aside the Allahabad High Court order that had previously upheld the detention. The top court ruled that state authorities cannot pass preventive detention orders relying on confessions made while in police custody.

Inadmissible Police Confessions Cannot Justify Detention

The petitioner, Mulla Afroz, was named as a key suspect in the violence that erupted in Sambhal following a court-mandated survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid, an incident that resulted in four deaths. Police arrested Afroz nearly 54 days after the clash, citing a statement recorded during custodial interrogation.

Although the Allahabad High Court later granted Afroz bail in the substantive criminal case, district authorities slapped him with a preventive detention order under the National Security Act (NSA) on October 13, 2025.

Challenging the move, Afroz moved the apex court after the High Court refused to set aside the detention. His counsel argued that a confession made to police officers holds no evidentiary value in law and cannot form the basis for "subjective satisfaction" required by district magistrates to invoke preventive detention.

The defence cited landmark judgments, including Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, emphasizing that a vague apprehension of a person committing future crimes, without tangible material, fails to meet the legal threshold for depriving an individual of personal liberty.

Bench Questions Subjective Satisfaction of District Authorities

During arguments, the division bench grilled the state counsel over relying on custodial statements to justify preventive detention. Justice Datta observed that police confessions cannot act as valid material to satisfy the administration that an individual poses a threat to public order.

The Uttar Pradesh government defended the executive order by claiming a high likelihood of the accused disturbing public peace if left free. State advocates argued that the evidentiary admissibility of a statement should be tested separately during the main trial rather than at the detention stage.

Rejecting the state’s contention, the Supreme Court held that executive powers under preventive detention laws must adhere strictly to constitutional safeguards. The bench noted that raw allegations and uncorroborated police statements do not constitute objective material to strip a citizen of their fundamental rights.

Besides quashing the detention, the court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹10 lakh in costs, signalling stern disapproval of arbitrary detention practices by state machinery.