The Supreme Court has quashed the preventive detention order passed under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, against Mulla Afroz, the alleged mastermind of the November 2024 Sambhal violence.

The court also imposed exemplary costs of ₹10 lakh on the State of Uttar Pradesh.

The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that a confessional statement cannot be the sole ground for an order under the preventive detention law. It was also held that, in the present case, the detaining authority did not give appropriate consideration to the facts. It was concluded that the power of preventive detention was illegally exercised by the authorities.

"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 Court held.


Advocate Divyesh Pratap Singh appeared for the Appellant, while ASG KM Natraj appeared for the Respondents

The Court also expressed its deep sorrow after a law clerk left his earthly abode days before his 27th birthday. The Bench dedicated the judgment to him.

The matter pertained to the communal violence that erupted in Sambhal following a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid, which resulted in the death of four persons. The Appellant was arrested approximately 54 days after the incident, allegedly pursuant to a custodial confession recorded by the investigating authorities.

Although the Appellant was subsequently enlarged on bail by the Allahabad High Court, the District Magistrate issued an order of preventive detention against him on October 13, 2025, under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. The said detention order was later affirmed by the Allahabad High Court, constraining the petitioner to prefer a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India.

The Appellant was arrested by the police of the police station, Nakhasa, Sambhal in January 2025. It was the case of the Appellant that the detention order as well as the grounds of detention were not provided to the Appellant (detenu). The letter of the District Magistrate addressed to the Superintendent, District Jail, Moradabad indicated that the detention order and grounds of detention, along with the aforesaid documents, were not received by the Superintendent, District Jail, Moradabad, and he was directed to read over and explain the detention order and grounds of detention to the Appellant.

The High Court, while dismissing the plea, had held, "There is due application of mind by the detaining Authority as well as the State Government to come to a subjective satisfaction that the petitioner was required to be detained under the NSA. The grounds of detention are well informed, where details of acts and the resulting facts which showed violation of public order, have been copiously noticed by the detaining Authority. The way the even tempo of life was affected, has been cited with definitive instances in the grounds of detention. The possibility of the detenue repeating acts that may lead to further violation of public order have also been recorded. The subjective satisfaction, in that regard also, is founded on valid and objective material."

Setting aside the High Court's findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: Mulla Afroz v. Union of India and Ors. [Crl.A. No. 004310 / 2026]

Tags: