Back
Supreme Court Quashes Sambhal Violence Accused Mulla Afrozs NSA Detention Imposes Ten Lakh Cost
In a decisive rebuke to the , the on Tuesday quashed the of Mulla Afroz, the prime accused in the 2024 Sambhal violence, under the . A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that the was founded on an and imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on the state for what it termed an “.” The judgment overturns an earlier order of the that had upheld the detention, and it sets a significant precedent on the limits of law in India.
Background: The Sambhal Violence and NSA Detention
The case originates from the violent clashes that erupted in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, on , during a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. The survey was conducted following claims that a Hindu temple once stood at the site. The violence left four persons dead and dozens injured. Mulla Afroz was arrested approximately 54 days later, allegedly on the basis of a confession he made while in police custody. Although the granted him bail, the Sambhal District Magistrate passed a order under on , while Afroz remained in judicial custody. The state government subsequently confirmed the detention for a period of 12 months.
Afroz challenged the detention before the , arguing that his alleged involvement was based solely on a confession recorded in police custody—a confession that is inadmissible in evidence under the . He also contended that the had failed to consider relevant material and that the mere existence of multiple criminal cases could not justify without a and informed . The High Court dismissed his petition on , holding that the ’s appeared justified and that the court could not examine the sufficiency of the material. Afroz then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Scrutiny of the
During the hearing on , the bench had already expressed strong reservations about the state’s reliance on a . Justice Dipankar Datta questioned whether such a confession could provide the “” required for passing a order. The court also pressed the state on why CCTV footage from the day of the violence did not feature prominently in the material relied upon for the detention. The state had defended its action by arguing that there was a “likelihood” of Afroz causing violence or disturbing if released.
In its judgment delivered on , the bench unequivocally rejected that argument. The court held that the had failed to take into consideration appropriate material before passing the . It observed that “whatever has been said by the has been discussed to hold that the power of detention has been illegally exercised.” The court consequently quashed the , the subsequent confirmation order, and the ’s judgment.
The Illegality of Reliance on
The core legal issue revolved around the admissibility and of a confession made in police custody. The Supreme Court ruled that such a confession is inadmissible in law and cannot constitute the basis for “” under the NSA. “ cannot be based on . can’t be the basis for NSA,” the bench declared. The court further held that “ cannot be the sole ground for detention, surrounding circumstances have to be looked into.”
This ruling draws on well-established principles from decisions such as and , which emphasize that a mere possibility of the detenue becoming involved in crime again, without supporting such an apprehension, cannot furnish a valid basis for . The Supreme Court found that the state had no material other than the inadmissible confession to justify its apprehension that Afroz would disturb if released.
Cost Imposed as a Deterrent
In an unusual and pointed move, the Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on the for passing an illegal order. The bench described the state’s action as an “.” The cost is intended to serve as a deterrent against the misuse of laws, which are meant to be used sparingly and only on the basis of credible, admissible material. Legal experts view this as a strong message to executive authorities to exercise the power of with caution and not as a substitute for a fair criminal trial.
In a poignant moment during the pronouncement of the judgment, Justice Dipankar Datta paid tribute to his law clerk, Ritvik Deshwal, who passed away before his 27th birthday. The judge dedicated the judgment to Deshwal, noting his contribution to the preparation of the ruling and describing his death as leaving an “unbearably deep void.”
Legal Implications for
The judgment reinforces the against arbitrary . It clarifies that the ’s must be based on legally admissible evidence, not on confessions extracted in police custody, which are inherently unreliable and often coerced. The decision also underscores that courts will not hesitate to examine the material relied upon by the to ensure it is not a pretext for illegal detention.
For legal practitioners, the ruling provides a clear framework for challenging NSA detentions that are premised on custodial confessions. It also strengthens the argument that the existence of multiple criminal cases, without more, does not automatically justify . The cost imposed on the state is a novel remedy that may encourage more rigorous scrutiny of detention orders at the initial stage.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in is a landmark reaffirmation of the and the limits of executive power. By quashing the NSA detention and imposing a substantial cost, the court has sent a clear signal that cannot be used as a tool to bypass the requirements of a . The decision is likely to have a lasting impact on how lower courts and detaining authorities assess the material supporting such orders. For the legal community, it stands as a reminder that even in cases involving , the constitutional rights of the individual cannot be lightly set aside.
