The Supreme Court of India ruled on Tuesday that a confession statement made by an accused individual cannot serve as the sole justification for preventive detention under the National Security Act (NSA), according to court records. A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu delivered the judgment while formally quashing the preventive detention order issued against Mulla Afroz.
Uttar Pradesh Police originally invoked the strict provisions of the National Security Act against Mulla Afroz in October 2025, citing his alleged involvement in communal violence that occurred in Sambhal in 2024.
Legal Framework and Preventive Detention Rules
The National Security Act grants both the central government and state authorities the legal power to detain individuals to prevent actions deemed prejudicial to the defense and security of India. Under the statute, the maximum allowable period of preventive detention is 12 months, though authorities can revoke the order earlier.
Local administrations hold the authority to invoke the NSA, but the measure requires subsequent ratification by an advisory board headed by a former high court judge. Because the framework operates under preventive detention guidelines rather than standard criminal arrest procedures, authorities carry no legal obligation to present the detained person before a traditional court of law, distinguishing it from standard criminal prosecution.
Origins of the Sambhal Unrest
Tensions in Sambhal escalated significantly in November 2024 during a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. The survey commenced following claims that a Harihar temple previously existed at the location.
On November 24, during the second round of the survey, protesting locals clashed with security personnel.
Court Proceedings and Personal Remarks
While pronouncing the bench’s judgment on Tuesday, Justice Dipankar Datta took a moment to pay public tribute to his law clerk. The clerk passed away just four days before reaching his 27th birthday, according to coverage from PTI. A copy of the detailed Supreme Court judgment remains awaited by legal observers.
Worth a look