The Supreme Court has set aside the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz under the National Security Act, 1980, holding that a confession allegedly made before the police could not, without independent supporting material, sustain the detention order. The Court also directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay ₹10 lakh to Afroz after finding that the detention had effectively made the process itself a punishment.
The judgment was delivered on 29 September 2026 by a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu in Mulla Afroz v. Union of India & Others, Criminal Appeal No. 4310 of 2026.
Key takeaways from the judgment
- A confession made before a police officer cannot, by itself, provide the subjective satisfaction required for preventive detention.
- Courts may examine whether the material relied upon has a rational and proximate connection with the need to prevent future prejudicial conduct.
- A chargesheet is an investigating agency’s opinion; it is not a finding of guilt or conclusive proof of involvement.
- Preventive detention cannot be used as another route to continue custody merely because an accused has obtained, or may obtain, bail.
- Multiple criminal cases do not automatically justify preventive detention without cogent and reliable supporting material.
- The Court ordered the State to pay ₹10 lakh to the appellant within one month.
What was the Mulla Afroz case about?
The case arose from violence in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, on 24 November 2024 during a court-ordered survey of the Jama Masjid. Four people died in the incident. Afroz was alleged to have played a leading role in organising or inciting the violence.
He was arrested on 17 January 2025 in connection with the criminal cases. While he remained in judicial custody, the District Magistrate passed a detention order against him on 13 October 2025 under the National Security Act, 1980. The order was confirmed on 28 November 2025 for one year.
Afroz challenged the detention before the Allahabad High Court. He argued, among other grounds, that he had been implicated mainly through an extra-judicial confession allegedly obtained by threats and torture. He also alleged non-compliance with the constitutional and statutory safeguards governing preventive detention.
The High Court dismissed his petition on 8 June 2026. It treated the detention order as an administrative action based on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and found no sufficient ground to interfere. Afroz then approached the Supreme Court.
What legal questions did the Supreme Court consider?
The Supreme Court examined two central questions.
First, could a confession attributed to the proposed detenu and made before a police officer be used to form the subjective satisfaction necessary for preventive detention?
Second, even if that confession was excluded or given no weight, did the remaining material provide an independent and reasonable basis for the detention?
These questions required the Court to distinguish preventive detention from ordinary criminal prosecution. A criminal case determines responsibility for past conduct through a trial. Preventive detention, by contrast, restricts liberty to prevent apprehended future conduct. Because it operates without a criminal conviction, its constitutional and statutory safeguards must be strictly observed.
Police confession cannot be the sole basis for preventive detention
The State argued that the strict rules of admissibility applicable in a criminal trial do not regulate every document that a detaining authority may consider. The Court accepted that the two processes are different, but it rejected the proposition that an alleged police confession could alone support preventive detention.
The Bench held that a confessional statement made before a police officer cannot, in the absence of independent supporting material, form the foundation of the authority’s subjective satisfaction. Such a statement is treated with legal suspicion, particularly where the person consistently alleges that it was obtained through coercion or torture.
The Court clarified that other independent materials may still be examined. The ruling does not create an absolute rule that the mere presence of a confession automatically invalidates every detention order. The decisive question is whether reliable material, separate from the confession, actually supports the need for detention.
The Bench also held that the contrary conclusion reached by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Suman could not be sustained to the extent that it permitted a police confession to justify detention without independent substantive grounds.
Why did the remaining material fail judicial scrutiny?
After declining to rely on the confession, the Supreme Court examined the other grounds stated in the detention order. It found serious gaps between the allegations and the documents that were said to support them.
CCTV footage was neither supplied nor produced
The detention grounds referred to CCTV footage and video recordings through which investigators allegedly identified 95 accused persons and later described Afroz as a principal architect of the violence.
However, the footage and recordings were not among the 22 documents relied upon by the detaining authority. They were not supplied to Afroz and were not produced before either the High Court or the Supreme Court. The Bench found that undisclosed and unavailable material could not provide a valid foundation for detention.
The Court also noted that investigators arrested Afroz 54 days after registration of the first FIR, despite claiming that contemporaneous footage revealed his role. No satisfactory explanation for the delay was offered.
Alleged mobile communications were unsupported
The detention grounds also referred to communications between Afroz and a person described as his “Boss”, which allegedly showed a larger conspiracy. At the same time, the authorities claimed that Afroz had erased data from the recovered phone.
There was no explanation of how the alleged communications were retrieved. Neither the phone nor the messages formed part of the relied-upon documents. The Court therefore found no material substantiating their existence or contents.
A chargesheet is not proof of guilt
The detaining authority treated the filing of a chargesheet as confirmation of Afroz’s involvement and of the disturbance of public order. The Supreme Court rejected that approach.
A chargesheet records the investigating agency’s view that sufficient material exists to proceed against an accused. It does not establish guilt and cannot be treated as conclusive proof of participation in an offence. The detention order did not explain how the chargesheet, standing by itself, established the need to prevent future conduct.
Preventive detention cannot be used to defeat bail
The detention grounds referred to information allegedly received from police officials about discussions inside jail. According to that information, Afroz intended to commit further violence if released on bail.
The Court found that this reasoning showed an attempt to frustrate the effect of bail and continue custody through preventive detention. Afroz had obtained bail in one connected case on 9 September 2025, about a month before the detention order. He was later granted bail in all the criminal cases relating to the incident.
The judgment recognises that pending criminal proceedings do not legally prevent the State from invoking preventive-detention powers. The two jurisdictions are distinct. But when a person is already in custody and the State relies on substantially the same incident and material, the claimed preventive purpose requires more exacting scrutiny.
The authority must identify material showing a genuine likelihood of future prejudicial conduct. Preventive detention cannot serve as a substitute for opposing bail through the ordinary criminal process.
Scope of judicial review over “subjective satisfaction”
Preventive-detention decisions are commonly described as resting on the subjective satisfaction of the authorised officer. That does not place them beyond judicial review.
The Supreme Court explained that a constitutional court does not sit in appeal over the adequacy of every item of evidence. It may, however, examine the decision-making process and determine whether relevant material existed, whether the authority applied its mind, and whether the material had a rational connection with the statutory purpose.
The grounds must be precise, relevant and capable of being answered by the detenu. Reliance on vague, unavailable, legally irrelevant or extraneous material affects the right to receive the grounds of detention and to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
In this case, the required link between the material and the stated need for preventive detention was missing. The Court therefore did not consider it necessary to decide whether the alleged offences themselves concerned national security or disturbance of public order.
Supreme Court’s final order and ₹10 lakh costs
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside:
- the Allahabad High Court judgment dated 8 June 2026;
- the detention order dated 13 October 2025; and
- the confirmation order dated 28 November 2025.
It directed that Afroz be released immediately unless required in another case.
The Bench observed that the one-year detention period was close to expiring and that Afroz had already suffered a substantial loss of liberty despite obtaining bail in the cases connected with the incident. It consequently directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay ₹10 lakh to him within one month.
The Court expressly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the pending criminal cases. Those proceedings must continue according to law and without being influenced by observations made while testing the detention order.
The official Supreme Court judgment in Mulla Afroz v. Union of India is available on the Court’s website.
Last verified: 30 September 2026, 9:45 PM IST.
