Supreme Court: a confession made to police can't alone justify preventive detention, quashes Sambhal detainee's NSA order

The appellant was detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 after being implicated, though not named in the original FIR, in the November 2024 violence during a mosque survey in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, in which four people died. The detention order relied heavily on a confessional statement the appellant made to police while in custody, which he said was extracted through torture, and on recovery of a pistol. The Allahabad High Court had upheld the detention. The Supreme Court, per Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, held that a statement made by an accused to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence and cannot form the sole basis of a detaining authority's subjective satisfaction, reaffirming the position in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab.

To the extent a Madras High Court Full Bench ruling had permitted reliance on such statements, the Court overruled it, though it clarified that a detention order can still stand if the authority relied on other material besides the confession. Finding no other credible material supporting the detention here, and noting the order did not satisfy Article 22's procedural safeguards, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the detention, directed the appellant's release, and imposed costs of Rs. 10 lakh on the State of Uttar Pradesh.