By Maktoob
The Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz, accused by Uttar Pradesh Police of being the “mastermind” behind the 2024 Sambhal protest following a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid, and imposed a cost of ₹10 lakh on the Uttar Pradesh government for what it held was an illegal detention order.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu set aside the Allahabad High Court judgment that had upheld Afroz’s detention under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980.
The Supreme Court held that the Uttar Pradesh government could not have invoked the preventive detention law against Afroz on the basis of a confession allegedly obtained while he was in police custody, Live Law reported.
Afroz is an accused in the case related to the November 2024 protest in Sambhal, which erupted during a court-ordered survey of the historic Shahi Jama Masjid. The survey was accompanied by a Hindutva mob chanting “Jai Shri Ram.” Four Muslim youth were killed in police firing during the violence.
Muslim groups and Opposition parties had accused the Uttar Pradesh Police of using excessive force during the violence and subsequently carrying out a crackdown against Muslims in Sambhal.
Afroz was arrested around 54 days after the incident, allegedly on the basis of a confession made while in police custody.
Despite subsequently securing bail from the Allahabad High Court, Afroz remained deprived of his liberty after authorities invoked the stringent NSA against him. A preventive detention order was issued on October 13, 2025, allowing the state to keep him in detention without relying on a conviction in the criminal case.
The Allahabad High Court later upheld the detention order, following which Afroz approached the Supreme Court challenging its legality.
During an earlier hearing on September 8, the Supreme Court had questioned the relevance and evidentiary value of the alleged custodial confession relied upon by the authorities. The bench asked whether a statement allegedly made in police custody could legally form the basis of the “subjective satisfaction” required to invoke preventive detention.
This story was originally published in maktoobmedia.com. Read the full story here.