Supreme Court rejects preventive detention based solely on police confession

The Supreme Court has ruled that a confession made to a police officer cannot, without independent supporting material, form the sole basis for a preventive detention order under the National Security Act, 1980. A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu set aside both the detention order and its confirmation in a case arising from violence in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, in November 2024. The court also overturned the Allahabad High Court’s decision and directed the accused’s release unless he was required in another case.

The accused had been arrested in January 2025 in connection with other cases. While in custody, police recorded a confession, after which a .32-bore pistol was allegedly recovered. He was later granted bail in one case and, by June 2026, had obtained bail in all criminal cases linked to the incident.

Despite this, the Sambhal district magistrate ordered his preventive detention in October 2025 under Section 3(2) of the NSA. The State government subsequently confirmed the detention for a further 12 months. The accused argued before the Supreme Court that the detention relied on an extra-judicial confession allegedly obtained through torture and threats.

The State maintained that a confession could be considered by a detaining authority and that preventive detention was distinct from a criminal prosecution. The court rejected that position where the confession was the only basis for the authority’s satisfaction. It referred to Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which generally excludes confessions made to police officers, subject to limited exceptions.

The Bench said preventive detention remains subject to constitutional safeguards and judicial review. It held that legally unusable grounds cannot support detention because a detainee must be able to understand and challenge the reasons given. The State was ordered to pay ₹10 lakh in costs.