The Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment on Tuesday, ruling that an accused person's confessional statement cannot serve as the sole ground to detain them under the National Security Act (NSA). A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu set aside the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz while delivering this verdict. What Did the Court Say? The Supreme Court stated that the detaining authority must consider other relevant facts and circumstances. The bench observed that in Afroz's case, the authorities failed to do so and misused their powers. How Much Penalty Was Imposed on the State Government? The Uttar Pradesh Police had invoked the stringent National Security Act (NSA) against Mulla Afroz in October 2025 for his alleged role in the 2024 Sambhal communal violence. The Supreme Court imposed a fine of ₹10 lakh on the government for passing an illegal preventive detention order. What Is the National Security Act (NSA)? The NSA empowers the Central and State governments to detain individuals who could potentially act against the security of India. The maximum period of detention under the act is 12 months, though it can be revoked earlier. Local administrations can enforce the NSA, which requires approval from an Advisory Board headed by a former High Court judge. Since it falls under preventive detention rather than a formal arrest, there is no legal obligation to produce the detainee before a magistrate within 24 hours. Background of the Case Tensions flared up in Sambhal in November 2024 during a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. The survey was ordered following a petition claiming that a Harihar temple originally existed at the site. On November 24, during the second phase of the survey, clashes broke out between local protesters and security personnel, resulting in four deaths and dozens of injuries.