Supreme Court Quashes Mulla Afroz’s Preventive Detention In Sambhal Violence Case, Imposes ₹10 Lakh Costs On UP

The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu held that while an extra-judicial confession could form part of the material considered by a detaining authority, the authority was required to examine the surrounding circumstances and other relevant material before exercising the power of preventive detention.

In Afroz’s case, the Court found that the detaining authority had failed to undertake the required consideration of relevant material and had consequently exercised the power of preventive detention illegally.

The Court was considering Afroz’s challenge to the preventive detention order passed against him under the National Security Act (NSA), as well as the subsequent confirmation of the detention.

The judgment considered two principal issues: whether an order of preventive detention could be founded on an extra-judicial confession and whether the constitutional and statutory safeguards under the NSA had been complied with, including whether the material relied upon by the detaining authority was legally valid.

On the first issue, the Bench held that a confessional statement could not, by itself, be the sole basis for preventive detention. The detaining authority was required to consider the surrounding circumstances and other material relevant to the exercise of the extraordinary power of preventive detention.

On the second issue, the Court examined the material and reasoning recorded by the detaining authority, particularly the contents of paragraphs 8 to 15 of the detention order.

The Bench concluded that the authority had failed to consider appropriate material while arriving at its satisfaction and had therefore wrongly exercised its power of preventive detention.

The Supreme Court consequently allowed Afroz’s appeal and set aside the detention order as well as the order confirming his detention. The Court also set aside the judgment of the High Court and directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay ₹10 lakh as costs.

Justice Datta dedicates judgment to late law clerk Ripik Deswal

At the beginning of the judgment, Justice Dipankar Datta included a personal tribute to his late law clerk-cum-research associate, Ripik Deswal, under the heading “In Memoriam”. The judgment records that Deswal passed away just four days before his 27th birthday, which is today.

Justice Datta observed that human life was fragile, although people seldom paused in the ordinary course of living to recognise how fleeting it was. The Judge recorded that the judgment bore the “quiet and indelible imprint” of Deswal’s final work and acknowledged his research assistance in preparing the judgment.

Justice Datta further wrote that Deswal’s untimely demise had left an “excruciatingly deep void”, recalling his commitment to the pursuit of truth and service of justice even in his final hours.

Describing the judgment as their “final collaboration”, Justice Datta dedicated it to Deswal’s memory and recalled his integrity, commitment to law, love for academia and other qualities of “head and heart”.

The Court ultimately quashed Afroz’s detention order and its confirmation, set aside the High Court judgment and imposed ₹10 lakh costs on the Uttar Pradesh government.