The Supreme Court has questioned whether a preventive detention order under the National Security Act (NSA) can be based on an alleged confession made while in police custody. The court sought a response from the Uttar Pradesh government in the case of Mulla Afroz, who has been accused of being the mastermind behind the 2024 Sambhal violence.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Uttar Pradesh government on whether a preventive detention order under the National Security Act (NSA) can be passed on the basis of an alleged confession made while a person was in police custody.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu was hearing a petition challenging the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz in connection with the violence that broke out in Sambhal in November 2024.
The bench reserved its judgment after hearing arguments in the case. Afroz has challenged his detention under the NSA before the Supreme Court. The Centre, Uttar Pradesh government, District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police have been made respondents in the petition.
Supreme Court Questions Basis of Preventive Detention
During the hearing, the bench questioned whether a strong apprehension that a situation of terror or violence could recur would by itself be sufficient to justify a preventive detention order.
Counsel appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government emphasized the apprehension that the petitioner could potentially spread violence or disturb public order. The state argued that if the material available before the authorities indicated such a possibility, it could provide grounds for preventive detention.
The court, however, examined whether the material relied upon by the authorities met the legal requirements for such detention.
Can a Police Custody Confession Form the Basis of NSA Detention?
One of the key questions before the bench was whether a detention order could be passed on the basis of a confession allegedly made while the petitioner was in police custody.
The bench reiterated the requirement of an objective factual basis for the authority’s satisfaction and questioned whether such a confession could itself be treated as a relevant fact for arriving at the necessary satisfaction required for preventive detention.
The court also questioned the evidentiary basis of other material cited by the state.
Supreme Court Questions Deleted Messages
The Uttar Pradesh government argued that the petitioner had deleted messages from his mobile phone. The state also referred to an alleged message that, according to its submissions, indicated his involvement in the events.
The bench questioned how the alleged message was recovered if the petitioner had deleted the messages from his phone.
The court also emphasized that an NSA detention order is preventive in nature and not punitive. The fact that detention is preventive cannot, the bench indicated, be repeatedly invoked as a general justification for rejecting every challenge to such an order.
Court Seeks Material Supporting State’s Satisfaction
The bench stressed that there must be evidence or relevant material on the basis of which the authorities could reach the required satisfaction before ordering preventive detention.
The court questioned whether the detention order in the present case was effectively based on the alleged confession and whether sufficient independent material existed to support the order.
Why Was the Petitioner Arrested 54 Days Later?
The Supreme Court also raised questions regarding the timing of the petitioner’s arrest.
Referring to the availability of CCTV footage from the first day of the incident, the bench questioned why the petitioner was arrested and implicated 54 days after the alleged incident.
The timing of the detention and the material relied upon by the authorities therefore emerged as important issues during the hearing.
UP Government Asked to Respond by September 9
After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to file its response by Wednesday, September 9, specifically on whether a confession made while in custody can form the basis for passing a preventive detention order under the National Security Act.
The case raises important questions concerning the legal safeguards applicable to preventive detention and the nature of material that can be relied upon by authorities while exercising powers under the NSA.
