₹10 Lakh Costs on UP Government: Supreme Court Strikes Down NSA Detention of Mulla Afroz

The Supreme Court has quashed Mulla Afroz’s preventive detention under the NSA and imposed ₹10 lakh in costs on Uttar Pradesh.

What Happened

On 29 September 2026, the Supreme Court of India quashed the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz under the National Security Act, 1980, in a case arising from the November 2024 Sambhal violence. A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu allowed Afroz’s appeal and set aside the detention order, the State Government’s confirmation of that order, and the Allahabad High Court judgment that had upheld the detention.

The Court held that the Uttar Pradesh government could not have based the preventive detention order on a confession allegedly made by Afroz while in police custody. Bar & Bench reported that the Court said such a statement could not be the sole ground for preventive detention and that the surrounding circumstances also had to be examined.

The Court also found that the detaining authority had failed to take appropriate material into consideration before passing the detention order. It consequently held that the power of preventive detention had been illegally exercised and imposed costs of ₹10 lakh on the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Background & Context

The case follows violence in Sambhal in November 2024 after a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. Four people died during the violence. Afroz was arrested around 54 days after the incident and was later granted bail by the Allahabad High Court.

Despite the grant of bail, the Sambhal District Magistrate passed a preventive detention order against Afroz on 13 October 2025 under Section 3 of the National Security Act. The State Government subsequently confirmed the detention, and the Allahabad High Court upheld the detention order. Afroz then approached the Supreme Court. The earlier High Court record also shows that the detention order and subsequent State Government order were challenged in the habeas corpus proceedings.

When the Supreme Court heard the matter on 8 September 2026, the bench questioned whether the alleged custodial confession could form part of the material supporting the “subjective satisfaction” required for preventive detention. The State defended the detention by pointing to material which, according to its argument, indicated a likelihood of Afroz causing violence or affecting public order. The Court reserved judgment after the arguments concluded.

Key Details

Court/Forum: The matter was decided by the Supreme Court of India.

Date: The judgment was pronounced on 29 September 2026.

Case: The case is titled Mulla Afroz v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: The bench comprised Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu.

Act Invoked: The preventive detention order was passed under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980.

Parties: Mulla Afroz was the petitioner/appellant, while the Union of India, the State of Uttar Pradesh and other authorities were respondents.

Detention Order: The Sambhal District Magistrate passed the detention order on 13 October 2025. It was subsequently confirmed by the State Government and upheld by the Allahabad High Court before the Supreme Court intervened.

Outcome: The Supreme Court quashed the detention order, the State Government’s confirmation order and the Allahabad High Court judgment, and imposed ₹10 lakh in costs on the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Why It Matters

The significance of the ruling lies in the Court’s scrutiny of the material used to justify preventive detention. Such detention is intended to operate as a preventive measure, rather than as a substitute for a finding of criminal guilt. That makes the question of what material can legitimately support the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction central to judicial review.

Here, the Supreme Court did not merely set aside the detention. It also imposed ₹10 lakh in costs after finding that the power of preventive detention had been illegally exercised. The financial consequence therefore forms an important part of the order, alongside the quashing of the detention itself.

For law students and practitioners, the case brings two issues into sharp focus: the quality and relevance of the material placed before a detaining authority, and the extent to which an alleged confession made in police custody can support preventive detention. The reported answer on the latter is that it cannot, by itself, constitute the sole basis for the detention order.

At the same time, the ruling should not be read as a determination of the criminal allegations against Afroz. The Supreme Court’s reported decision concerns the legality of the preventive detention and the material relied upon for that administrative order. It does not, on the material presently reported, decide guilt or innocence in the underlying criminal proceedings.

The account above is based on reports of the Supreme Court’s 29 September pronouncement. Broader conclusions about the judgment’s doctrinal scope should be drawn only after the full written judgment is available.

Closing

The Supreme Court’s decision places the legality of preventive detention back at the centre of the case. By quashing the NSA detention and imposing ₹10 lakh in costs on Uttar Pradesh, the Court has underscored that preventive detention orders must rest on appropriate material and proper consideration by the detaining authority.

The ruling concerns the detention order before the Court. The underlying criminal allegations remain a separate matter.