Mulla Afroz v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that a confession made by a detenu before the police cannot, by itself, constitute the basis for preventive detention under the National Security Act. Preventive detention must be supported by substantive material demonstrating the necessity to prevent future prejudicial conduct, particularly where ordinary criminal proceedings are already pending. The detention was quashed and ₹10 lakh costs were imposed on the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Legal Issue
Whether an order of preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980 can be sustained primarily or solely on the basis of a confessional statement made by the detenu before police authorities, and whether the constitutional and statutory safeguards governing preventive detention had been complied with.
Brief Facts
The case arose from violence that occurred on 24 November 2024 during a court-ordered survey of a mosque at Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, resulting in the death of four persons and registration of multiple FIRs.
Mulla Afroz was arrested on 17 January 2025 in connection with the criminal cases. During police custody, a confessional statement was allegedly recorded, following which a .32-bore pistol was stated to have been recovered.
Although the appellant subsequently secured bail in the criminal proceedings, the District Magistrate, Sambhal passed an order on 13 October 2025 directing his preventive detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. The State Government later confirmed the detention for twelve months.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed his habeas corpus petition and upheld the detention. Afroz thereafter approached the Supreme Court challenging both the detention order and the High Court's judgment.
Held / Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, the preventive detention order and the subsequent confirmation order.
The Court held that a confessional statement made by a detenu before a police officer cannot constitute the sole basis for the subjective satisfaction required to sustain preventive detention.
Such reliance must be tested against the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and the evidentiary prohibition contained in Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 concerning confessions made to police officers.
The Court clarified that where other substantive and legally sustainable material exists independently of the confession, the detention may still require examination on the basis of such material. However, a bare confession, unsupported by other substantive grounds, cannot sustain detention.
The Court further held that preventive detention cannot merely replicate allegations already forming the subject matter of an ongoing criminal prosecution. The material relied upon must demonstrate a genuine necessity to prevent future prejudicial conduct.
Where the ordinary criminal process has already been set in motion, resort to the extraordinary power of preventive detention must withstand a correspondingly higher degree of judicial scrutiny.
The appellant was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case. The Court also imposed ₹10 lakh costs on the State of Uttar Pradesh, payable to the appellant within one month.
Important Observations
Full Headnote
Legal Significance
The judgment substantially strengthens constitutional safeguards against misuse of preventive detention.
First, it clarifies that police confessions cannot independently sustain an NSA detention order, linking preventive-detention jurisprudence directly with Article 20(3) and Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
Second, the Court drew a clear distinction between preventive detention and ordinary criminal prosecution. Preventive detention cannot merely reinforce accusations relating to past conduct; there must be material showing why detention is necessary to avert future prejudicial activity.
Third, the decision imposes a higher standard of scrutiny where an accused is already facing ordinary criminal proceedings or has secured bail. The extraordinary power of preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for, or to circumvent, the regular criminal process.