New Delhi: The Supreme Court has cancelled the preventive detention order issued under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, against Mulla Afroz, who has been accused of being the alleged mastermind behind the November 2024 violence in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu also directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹10 lakh in exemplary costs, holding that the detention order was illegally passed.
The court said a confessional statement by itself cannot be the sole basis for preventive detention under the NSA. It also found that the authority responsible for ordering the detention had failed to properly consider the relevant facts before taking the decision.
While allowing Afroz’s appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s earlier judgment upholding his detention order.
The Bench observed that the authorities had improperly exercised their powers under the preventive detention law and ordered: “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 case relates to the communal violence that broke out in Sambhal after a court-directed survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. Four people were killed in the violence.
Afroz was arrested by police from the Nakhasa police station in Sambhal in January 2025, around 54 days after the violence. The prosecution case reportedly relied, among other things, on a confession recorded while he was in custody.
He was later granted bail by the Allahabad High Court. However, on October 13, 2025, the Sambhal District Magistrate issued a preventive detention order against him under Section 3 of the NSA.
Afroz challenged the detention, arguing that he had not been properly provided with the detention order and the grounds on which it was based. A communication from the District Magistrate to the Superintendent of District Jail, Moradabad indicated that the relevant documents had not initially been received by the jail authorities. The jail superintendent was subsequently instructed to read out and explain the detention order and grounds of detention to Afroz.
The Allahabad High Court had earlier rejected his challenge. It held that the detaining authority and the state government had applied their minds to the material before them and had reached a valid conclusion that his detention was necessary to prevent a further disturbance of public order.
The High Court had also said the detention grounds contained details of the alleged acts and their impact on public order, and that there was material supporting the possibility of Afroz repeating such acts.
The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with those findings and allowed Afroz’s appeal, quashing the detention order and setting aside the High Court’s decision.
The Bench also expressed grief over the death of a law clerk who died shortly before his 27th birthday and dedicated the judgment to his memory.
Advocate Divyesh Pratap Singh appeared for Afroz, while Additional Solicitor General KM Natraj represented the respondents.
