Supreme Court Quashes NSA Detention of Sambhal Violence Accused, Fines UP Government Rs 10 Lakh

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz under the National Security Act (NSA), and ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to pay Rs 10 lakh in costs for what the bench described as an illegal detention order. Afroz is accused by the state of being the main planner behind the violence that broke out in Sambhal in November 2024.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu also overturned the Allahabad High Court judgment that had upheld the detention. The central finding was narrow but significant: the state could not rely on a confession Afroz allegedly made while in police custody as the foundation for locking him up without trial.

What the Court Decided

Preventive detention laws like the NSA let the government hold a person without charge if it is satisfied that they are likely to act against public order. Because the power bypasses a regular trial, courts insist that the government's satisfaction rest on relevant and legally usable material.

In this case, the bench found that the detaining authority had leaned on a custodial confession, which is inadmissible as evidence under Indian law. A statement that cannot be used to convict someone in court, the judges reasoned, cannot be the main plank for holding them indefinitely outside the court process either.

By attaching a Rs 10 lakh cost to the ruling, the bench went beyond simply setting the order aside and made the state pay for passing it.

How the Case Reached the Top Court

The Sambhal violence followed a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid in November 2024. Clashes left four people dead and triggered a wide police crackdown in the western UP town.

Afroz was arrested roughly 54 days after the violence. He was later granted bail by the Allahabad High Court in the criminal case. Soon after, on October 13, 2025, authorities issued a fresh order detaining him under the NSA, which meant he stayed in custody despite the bail. The High Court upheld that order, and Afroz appealed.

The Supreme Court had reserved its verdict on September 8, when the bench openly questioned what weight a custodial confession could carry in forming the subjective satisfaction that the NSA requires.

The Arguments on Each Side

Afroz's lawyers argued that the arrest itself rested on an inadmissible confession, and that a long list of pending criminal cases does not, by itself, justify preventive detention. They also claimed that police personnel had fired during the violence and that this had not been fairly investigated, and asked for liberty to file a protest petition on that point.

The state defended the order on the ground that Afroz was likely to disturb public order again, and said questions over the confession's admissibility should be settled in the criminal trial rather than in the detention challenge.

Why It Matters Beyond Sambhal

Preventive detention orders under the NSA are frequently used by state governments after communal flare-ups and protests. The ruling adds to a line of Supreme Court decisions holding that such orders cannot be a workaround when ordinary criminal law, including bail, is already in play.

For the Uttar Pradesh government, the verdict is a setback in one of the state's most politically sensitive cases. It does not end the criminal proceedings against Afroz, which continue separately, but it means the state can no longer hold him under the NSA on the basis it chose.

This is an original summary based on public reporting. See our editorial policy for how we source, write, and correct our stories.