Supreme Court Overturns NSA Detention of Sambhal Violence Suspect

On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court of India invalidated the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz, who was accused of orchestrating the 2024 Sambhal violence, under the National Security Act (NSA). This decision overturned a previous ruling by the Allahabad High Court, which had upheld the detention order. The bench, consisting of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, determined that the Uttar Pradesh government acted unlawfully by basing the detention on a confession allegedly made by Afroz during police custody.

The court's ruling highlighted significant concerns regarding the reliability of custodial confessions. Justice Datta noted that the government could not rely on such confessions to establish the necessary subjective satisfaction required for preventive detention. This ruling came after the court had previously reserved its orders on September 8, during which it scrutinized the validity of the alleged confession and its implications for the detention order.

Mulla Afroz was implicated in the violence that erupted following a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid, resulting in four fatalities. He was arrested approximately 54 days after the incident, with his detention order issued on October 13, 2025, under the NSA. Although he was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court, the subsequent detention order prompted him to appeal to the Supreme Court, where he argued that the police had also fired during the incident, an aspect he claimed was inadequately investigated.

The Supreme Court's decision carries significant implications for the legal framework surrounding preventive detention in India. By imposing a ₹10 lakh cost on the Uttar Pradesh government, the court underscored the importance of adhering to lawful procedures and protecting individual rights against arbitrary detention. The ruling also sets a precedent regarding the admissibility of confessions obtained under duress, reinforcing the principle that such confessions cannot serve as a valid basis for preventive measures.

Looking ahead, this ruling may prompt a reevaluation of preventive detention practices in India, particularly concerning the use of custodial confessions. Legal experts anticipate that the government may need to revise its approach to detention orders to ensure compliance with constitutional safeguards. Future cases may further clarify the standards required for justifying preventive detention under the NSA.