Supreme Court of India· 29 September 2026

Can an irrelevant ground enter into the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority for an order of preventive detention?

MULLA AFROZ v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

2026 INSC 1067 · CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4310 OF 2026
Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta · Justice Sheel Nagu

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.3(2) National Security Act, 1980 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

An irrelevant ground cannot enter into the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority for an order of preventive detention.

No. An irrelevant ground, in law, cannot legitimately enter into the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The inclusion of an irrelevant ground, no less than a vague or obscure ground, strikes at the heart of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, since a detenu cannot be expected to make an effective representation against allegations incapable of sustaining the detention itself. Where the detaining authority has relied upon other materials apart from the confessional statement, the Court must ascertain whether the detention can be upheld on those materials, but a mere confessional statement cannot be relied on as the sole ground.

Headnote

National Security Act, 1980 — s.3(2) — Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — s.23 — Constitution of India — Arts.20(3), 22(5) — Preventive detention — Confessional statement before police officer — Subjective satisfaction — National Security Act, 1980 — s.3(2) — Preventive detention — Confessional statement before police officer — Held: A confessional statement made before a police officer cannot, by itself and without independent material lending support, form the basis of the subjective satisfaction needed to sustain an order of preventive detention. The Full Bench decision in Suman is overruled to that extent. (¶28, 36, 38) Constitution of India — Art.22(5) — Preventive detention — Irrelevant ground — Effective representation — Held further: An irrelevant ground cannot legitimately enter into the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, since a detenu cannot make an effective representation against allegations incapable of sustaining the detention. Other material relied upon must then be examined independently. (¶35, 39) National Security Act, 1980 — Preventive detention — Bail — Punitive detention — Scrutiny — Held further: A detention order that seeks to frustrate the judicial order granting bail is not preventive but punitive; where the person is already in custody or on bail, scrutiny of the detention order must be more exacting. (¶52, 53, 65) National Security Act, 1980 — Preventive detention — Chargesheet — Multiple cases — On facts, held: The mere filing of a chargesheet and the multiple pending cases did not sustain the detention order. Detention and confirmation orders set aside, release directed and costs of Rs.10 lakh imposed on the State. Appeal allowed. (¶50, 59, 67, 69)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 35Thus, following the precedent noted above, the law on the point appears to be that an irrelevant ground, in law, cannot legitimately enter into the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. To hold otherwise would be to validate a detention founded, at least in part, upon material that the law itself regards as inherently unreliable. Such an approach would run contrary to the safeguards enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The constitutional guarantee embodied therein having conferred on a detenu two valuable rights of being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds on which the order of detention has been made and of the right to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation thereagainst, these rights can be meaningfully exercised only when the grounds furnished are relevant, definite and capable of being effectively answered. The inclusion of an irrelevant ground, no less than the inclusion of a vague or obscure ground, strikes at the heart of the protection guaranteed by Article 22(5). Ergo, a detenu cannot be expected to make an effective representation against allegations which, in the eyes of law, are incapable of sustaining the detention itself. Where the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is founded, wholly or in part, on material that is legally irrelevant, the constitutional safeguard stands impaired. An order of preventive detention resting upon such irrelevant allegations must, for that reason alone, be rendered unsustainable.

Paragraph 39Law is, however, well settled that if the detaining authority has relied upon other materials apart from the confessional statement, the Court has to ascertain whether the detention can be upheld based on such other materials. At the same time, we reiterate that a mere confessional statement of the detenu (without any other substantive grounds or material) cannot be relied on as the sole ground for passing an order of detention.

Acts & Sections

s.3(2) National Security Act, 1980s.23 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023Art. 20(3) Constitution of IndiaArt. 22(5) Constitution of IndiaArt. 21 Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of MULLA AFROZ v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Can a confessional statement made before a police officer alone sustain an order of preventive detention in the absence of independent material?Is a detention order that seeks to frustrate an order granting bail not preventive but punitive?Is the mere filing of a chargesheet conclusive proof of involvement in the alleged offences?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections