What did the Supreme Court say about preventive detention based on custodial confession? | Explained

The story so far: The Supreme Court on September 29, 2026 set aside a preventive detention order under the National Security Act, 1980, holding that a confession made to a police officer cannot, by itself and without independent supporting material, form the basis for such an order.

A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that since the confessional statement solely formed the basis for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, it is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

What was the case about?

The case arose from the violence that broke out in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, on November 24, 2024, during a survey of a mosque. Four people were killed and several FIRs were registered.

The accused was arrested nearly two months after the incident, on January 17, 2025, in connection with other FIRs. While he was in custody, police recorded a confessional statement from him, pursuant to which a .32-bore pistol was allegedly recovered.

He was subsequently granted bail in one of the cases. On October 13, 2025, however, the District Magistrate of Sambhal passed an order directing his preventive detention under Section 3(2) of the NSA. The detention was later confirmed by the State government for a further period of 12 months. By June 2026, he had obtained bail in all the criminal cases relating to the incident. The accused challenged the detention before the Allahabad High Court, but the petition was dismissed. He then approached the Supreme Court.

One of his principal arguments was that the detention order rested on an extra-judicial confession allegedly obtained through torture and threats. The State, on the other hand, argued that a confession could be considered by a detaining authority and that preventive detention was different from a criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the detention order and the confirmation order.

What is preventive detention?