Police confession alone cannot justify preventive detention without independent material, Supreme Court rules; orders release and ₹10 lakh costs against State

Following violence during a mosque survey in Sambhal on 24 November 2024, in which four persons died, the appellant was arrested in January 2025 in connection with several FIRs.

A police-recorded confessional statement and alleged recovery of a pistol formed part of the material against him.

After the appellant received bail in one case, the District Magistrate ordered his preventive detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA), on 13 October 2025; the State later confirmed detention for 12 months.

The appellant challenged the detention, alleging that his confession had been obtained through torture and that relevant material had not been supplied.

The High Court dismissed his petition.

By the time of the Supreme Court appeal, he had obtained bail in all the criminal cases.

1. Whether an order of preventive detention may be based on an extra-judicial confession made to a police officer, particularly where coercion is alleged

2. Whether the remaining grounds and material relied on by the detaining authority provided a valid and reasonable basis for detention, consistently with constitutional and statutory safeguards

Article 20(3) of the Constitution protects against compelled self-incrimination, while Article 22(5) requires communication of relevant grounds and an effective opportunity to make a representation.

Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) generally excludes a confession made to a police officer, subject to limited statutory exceptions.

Such a confession cannot, by itself and without independent supporting material, form the basis for the subjective satisfaction required for preventive detention; a coerced confession is especially unreliable.

Under Section 3(2) of the NSA, detention requires relevant material supporting the authority’s satisfaction that detention is necessary to prevent future prejudicial conduct.

Judicial review remains limited but includes examining whether relevant material exists, whether the authority applied its mind, and whether a rational nexus connects the material to the need for detention.

Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi v. State of Manipur and Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana informed that review; Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar and Annu @ Aniket v. Union of India caution against using preventive detention merely to continue custody when bail is likely or granted.

The Court clarified that these principles do not displace the rule in Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal that criminal proceedings do not, by themselves, bar preventive detention.

The respondents did not refute the appellant’s consistent assertion that police obtained his confession through threats and torture.

Applying Articles 20(3) and 22(5), and Section 23 BSA, the Court held that the confession could not be relied on in these circumstances; it also could not, without independent supporting material, sustain detention.

The other grounds did not supply a sufficient independent basis: the CCTV footage and videos said to identify the appellant were neither included in the relied-upon documents nor produced; the alleged communications with a “Boss” were unsupported by the phone or messages; and filing a chargesheet did not establish guilt or, by itself, disturbance of public order.

The asserted jail discussions and plans for future violence were not supported by adequate material, and the detention appeared to frustrate the appellant’s bail and continue his custody.

The prior bail order was a relevant circumstance requiring closer scrutiny.

On the record as a whole, the Court found no sufficient nexus between the material relied on and the necessity for preventive detention.

It set aside the High Court judgment, the detention order, and the confirmation order, and directed the appellant’s release forthwith unless required in another case.

The appeal was allowed, and the State was ordered to pay the appellant costs of ₹10 lakh within one month.