Supreme Court overturns Sambhal NSA detention, orders Uttar Pradesh to pay ₹10 lakh

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has overturned the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz under the National Security Act in a case arising from the 2024 violence in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu ordered his release unless he is required in another case and directed the state to pay him ₹10 lakh in costs within one month.

The judgment is dated September 29, 2026. Although the decision was reported on September 30, the court did not issue the judgment on that date. It set aside both the Sambhal district magistrate’s detention order and the state government’s subsequent confirmation of it. The bench also overturned an Allahabad High Court ruling that had upheld the detention.

How the case reached the Supreme Court

The proceedings followed violence during a survey of a mosque in Sambhal on November 24, 2024. The Supreme Court’s judgment records that four people died. Afroz was arrested on January 17, 2025, in connection with criminal cases arising from the incident. He was not named in the first police report cited by the court, which was registered on the day of the violence.

Afroz obtained bail in one case in September 2025 but remained in custody in connection with other cases. On October 13, 2025, the district magistrate ordered his preventive detention under the National Security Act. The Uttar Pradesh government confirmed that order on November 28 for a one-year period. By June 2026, Afroz had secured bail in all the criminal cases connected to the incident, according to the judgment, but the preventive detention order remained in force.

He challenged the order before the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed his petition in June 2026. His appeal brought the legality of the detention before the Supreme Court. The issue was not whether he was guilty of an offence: preventive detention is intended to avert future conduct, while the criminal allegations must be resolved through the ordinary legal process.

Why the court rejected the detention

The Supreme Court held that a confession made before a police officer cannot be the sole basis for the official assessment needed to justify preventive detention. Afroz had maintained that the statement attributed to him was obtained through torture and threats. The bench noted that the respondents had not refuted that account in their reply affidavit or addressed it in their written submissions. On the material before it, the court said the statement could not be treated as voluntary.

The judges considered whether other material could independently support the detention. They found significant gaps. The grounds referred to video footage and to alleged phone communications suggesting a wider plan, but the court said the supposed messages were not among the documents relied upon and no supporting material had been placed before it. The bench also questioned why Afroz had been arrested 54 days after the first police report if the footage was available earlier; it said no satisfactory explanation was given.

A filed charge sheet did not establish guilt, the court said, and the existence of several criminal cases was not, by itself, enough to justify preventive detention. The judges found no adequate connection between the material presented and a demonstrated need to prevent future conduct. They did not decide whether the offences alleged against Afroz were of a kind that could affect public order or national security.

The state’s argument and the limits of the ruling

Defending the order, counsel for the respondents argued that the Sambhal violence had disturbed public order and disrupted essential services. The respondents maintained that pending criminal proceedings or bail did not prevent authorities from using the National Security Act. They also argued that the detention was preventive rather than a punishment and that other grounds could sustain it even if one ground failed.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that criminal prosecution does not automatically rule out preventive detention. But it found that this order relied substantially on material from the same incident already under prosecution, without adequately establishing why detention was needed to prevent future harm. In the court’s assessment, the measure had taken on a punitive character while Afroz remained deprived of liberty despite obtaining bail.

The order requires Afroz’s release unless another case lawfully requires his custody. It also requires Uttar Pradesh to pay him ₹10 lakh in costs within a month of September 29. The judgment does not acquit him: the bench expressly left the criminal cases to proceed under the law, unaffected by its findings about the detention order.