The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal filed by Mulla Afroz against his preventive detention under the National Security Act (NSA), quashing the detention order, the subsequent confirmation order and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. The Court has also imposed costs of ₹10 lakh on the State.
The case arose from the preventive detention of Afroz in connection with the November 2024 Sambhal violence. The Allahabad High Court had earlier dismissed his habeas corpus petition and upheld the detention order.
At the outset of the judgment, the Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu made a personal reference to its law clerk-cum-research associate Ritwik Deswal, who had passed away four days before his 27th birthday. The Court dedicated the judgment to his memory and acknowledged his contribution to the research that went into its preparation.
“
“One of our dearest law clerks cum research associates, Ritwik Deswal, left for his heavenly abode. Four days short of his 27th birthday, which happens to be today. As we pronounce this judgement, which bears the quiet and indelible imprint of his final labours, we wish to record our deep appreciation for the invaluable research assistance rendered by him in the buildup to the preparation of this judgement.”
The Court noted that the case essentially involved two questions: whether an order of preventive detention could be founded on an extrajudicial confession, and whether the procedural safeguards under the Constitution and the National Security Act had been complied with.
On the first issue, the Court held that the confessional statement could not by itself constitute the basis for detention and the surrounding circumstances also had to be examined. On the second issue, the Court held that the detaining authority had failed to take into consideration appropriate material while arriving at the decision to detain Afroz.
“
“Answering the first issue, we have said that the confessional statement cannot be the sole ground. The other surrounding circumstances have to be looked into. And while answering the second issue, we have held that the detaining authority did not take into consideration appropriate materials. In fact, whatever has been said by the detaining authority in paragraphs 8 to 15 have been discussed in extension to hold that the power of preventive detention was illegally exercised.”
The Bench consequently allowed the appeal and quashed the detention order, confirmation order and the Allahabad High Court judgment, while imposing costs of ₹10 lakh on the State.