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.
Not by itself. We think not! The Supreme Court reasoned that “a confession made before a police officer is presumed to be tainted and vulnerable to the influences of coercion, threat, inducement or promise. The provision recognises only two limited exceptions, namely, where the confession is made before a magistrate in accordance with law, or where it leads to the discovery of a fact, to the extent permitted by law.
Section 23 generally provides that a confession made to a police officer cannot be proved against an accused, subject to the exceptions contained in the provision. Section 23 of the BSA unequivocally embodies this principle by providing that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved against an accused. The legislative command is, therefore, clear: a confessional statement made before the police is not regarded as trustworthy evidence and is generally excluded from consideration against the maker thereof.”
The Supreme Court held that a confession made before a police officer cannot, without independent material to support it, form the basis for the “subjective satisfaction” required to sustain a preventive detention order. The court said, “The question which, thus, presents itself is, whether a statement, which the law treats as irrelevant for determining guilt, can nevertheless constitute a ground for forming the subjective satisfaction necessary to sustain an order of preventive detention.
What was the case about?
The accused was arrested nearly two months after the incident, on January 17, 2025, in connection with other FIRs. police recorded a confessional statement from him, pursuant to which a .32-bore pistol was allegedly recovered While he was in custody. 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 court also imposed ₹10 lakh in costs on the State.
He was subsequently granted bail in one of the cases. 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. Preventive detention means detaining a person without a trial and conviction by a court. Its purpose is to prevent a person from committing an offence in the near future rather than punishing for a past offence.
It therefore set aside the Allahabad High Court judgment and the detention and confirmation orders, and directed his release unless his custody was required in another case.
The accused challenged the detention before the Allahabad High Court, but the petition was dismissed.
