Sambhal violence case: Supreme Court Imposes ₹10 Lakh Cost on Uttar Pradesh Government in Mulla Afroz Preventive Detention Case
New Delhi, September 29, 2026: The Supreme Court has imposed a cost of ₹10 lakh on the Uttar Pradesh government in a case concerning the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz, an accused in the 2024 Sambhal violence case.
The Supreme Court held that a person’s preventive detention under the National Security Act (NSA) cannot be based on an alleged confession made while the person was in police custody. The ruling came after Mulla Afroz challenged his detention before the apex court.
What is the case about?
Mulla Afroz was accused in connection with the violence that broke out in Sambhal in 2024 during a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. The violence resulted in the deaths of four people, according to the report.
Afroz subsequently challenged his detention, arguing that he had been implicated in the violence case on the basis of an alleged confession that was recorded while he was in custody.
The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether such an alleged confession made in police custody could legally be relied upon as a basis for ordering preventive detention under the National Security Act.
When was Mulla Afroz detained?
According to the report, Mulla Afroz was detained on October 13, 2025, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.
Preventive detention is different from ordinary criminal detention. Its purpose is not simply to punish someone for an offence that has already been committed. Instead, the law allows authorities, subject to statutory safeguards and judicial review, to detain a person to prevent certain anticipated activities that may threaten public order or security.
The Uttar Pradesh government defended the detention on the ground that the Sambhal violence had affected law and order and public peace.
Allahabad High Court had earlier rejected the challenge
Before approaching the Supreme Court, Mulla Afroz challenged his detention before the Allahabad High Court.
The High Court rejected his petition in June 2026.
Following the High Court’s decision, Afroz challenged the detention before the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition.
The Supreme Court then examined whether the material relied upon by the authorities was legally sufficient to justify his preventive detention under the NSA.
Supreme Court questions the alleged police confession
The alleged confession became one of the most important issues during the Supreme Court proceedings.
The court examined whether an alleged confession made by an accused while in police custody could be treated as material supporting an order of preventive detention.
The Supreme Court ultimately held that preventive detention cannot be ordered against a person on the basis of an alleged confession made by the accused while in police custody.
The ruling is significant because preventive detention is legally different from ordinary criminal prosecution. The court therefore examined whether the material used by the authorities could legally support an order of preventive detention.
Supreme Court hearing
The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu.
The Supreme Court completed the hearing on September 8, 2026, and reserved its judgment.
During the proceedings, the court specifically examined the relevance of the alleged police-custody confession and whether it could legally support preventive detention under the National Security Act.
The judgment was delivered on September 29, 2026, with the court imposing a ₹10 lakh cost on the Uttar Pradesh government.
Why the ₹10 lakh cost matters
The ₹10 lakh amount imposed by the Supreme Court is described as a cost.
A court-imposed cost is different from a criminal fine or punishment. Costs are generally connected with legal proceedings and may be imposed by a court in appropriate circumstances.
In this case, the cost accompanied the Supreme Court’s decision concerning the legality of relying on the alleged police-custody confession for preventive detention.
Background: The 2024 Sambhal violence
The case originates from the violence in Sambhal in 2024.
The violence took place during a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. Four people were reported to have died in the violence.
Mulla Afroz was subsequently accused in connection with the case. His Supreme Court challenge, however, concerned not simply the criminal allegations but specifically his preventive detention under the National Security Act.
His legal challenge raised the question of whether material obtained from an alleged police-custody confession could be used to justify preventive detention.
The legal issue in simple terms
The case involves two separate legal processes.
1. Criminal prosecution
A person accused of an offence can face investigation, charges and a criminal trial. In such proceedings, the prosecution must establish the case according to the applicable criminal law.
2. Preventive detention
Preventive detention operates differently. It is intended to prevent anticipated conduct that falls within the scope of preventive-detention laws.
Because preventive detention permits authorities to detain a person without waiting for an ordinary criminal trial to conclude, the law contains safeguards governing how that power can be exercised.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case concerns the material that can legitimately be relied upon to justify preventive detention, particularly an alleged confession made during police custody.
What happened in the case, step by step?
The sequence is as follows:
- 2024: Violence broke out in Sambhal during a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid, with four deaths reported.
- October 13, 2025: Mulla Afroz was placed under preventive detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act.
- June 2026: The Allahabad High Court rejected his challenge to the detention.
- September 8, 2026: The Supreme Court completed the hearing and reserved its judgment.
- September 29, 2026: The Supreme Court delivered its decision, holding that an alleged confession made in police custody could not form the basis for preventive detention and imposing ₹10 lakh in costs on the Uttar Pradesh government.
What is the significance of the judgment?
The case highlights the distinction between criminal proceedings and preventive detention.
Even when a person is accused in a criminal case, the material used to justify preventive detention must satisfy the legal requirements applicable to preventive detention.
The Supreme Court’s decision specifically addresses the use of an alleged police-custody confession as the basis for such detention.
The judgment also resulted in a substantial monetary cost being imposed on the Uttar Pradesh government.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Mulla Afroz case concerns the legality of his preventive detention under the National Security Act following the 2024 Sambhal violence.
The court held that an alleged confession made while the accused was in police custody could not be used as the basis for preventive detention and imposed ₹10 lakh in costs on the Uttar Pradesh government.
The case had previously been rejected by the Allahabad High Court in June 2026 before reaching the Supreme Court.
The judgment therefore focuses primarily on the legal validity of the preventive detention and the material relied upon by the authorities, rather than determining the ultimate guilt or innocence of Mulla Afroz in the underlying Sambhal violence case.
