Today, On 25th May, The Supreme Court of India began hearing a suo motu case on alleged bias in Twisha Sharma’s death probe. SG Tushar Mehta said a woman lost her life and warned it is better to have a divorced daughter.
The Supreme Court of India today began hearing the suo motu case on the allegations of institutional bias and procedural lapses in the investigation into the death of Twisha Sharma.
The matter came before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and the hearing opened with the CJI expressing concern about how the incident was being reported.
At the beginning, CJI Justice Surya Kant said,
“We are slightly pained. We request the media not to carry statements of friends or relatives. The mother-in-law is a former district judge and it is unfortunate that it is being suggested that the judiciary is derailing the trial.”
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for the accused, informed the Court, he is appearing for the accused. My Section 161 statement is in the newspaper today.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the matter has gone to the CBI.
Responding to this, CJI Justice Surya Kant said,
“Yes, the decision is very fair. That is why the State has handed it over to the CBI.”
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave then pointed out that the mother-in-law’s statement had been recorded three times.
The Chief Justice then said,
“Once the State has entrusted the matter to the CBI, we don’t have to…”
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra requested that the DoPT notification be issued so the CBI can formally take over the investigation.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that,
“This is now an administrative exercise between the State and the CBI.”
Sidharth Luthra further argued that, since the matter involves allegations of institutional bias, there had been a failure to preserve evidence and a three-day delay in registering the FIR, and that with each passing day more evidence could be lost.
In reply, CJI Justice Surya Kant assured,
“We will ensure that the incident is investigated impartially. Get your statements recorded. We request the media not to record statements of witnesses and convert them into sound bites. This is an unfortunate incident.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta then commented that a lot of progress had also taken place because of media intervention.
Senior Advocate Luthra pointed out another issue, stating that the mother-in-law was producing her own CDRs and related material, which could not be permitted.
The CJI responded,
“Let the proper procedure for recording statements be followed.”
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra added that the Court should look at that specific point mentioned in the note.
The CJI then remarked,
“We hope all this is no longer being discussed in the media. We will not take notice of any of it. It is unfortunate that you want us to look into these aspects. A fair investigation has now been ensured since the CBI is probing the matter.”
Luthra said that there are certain aspects which are still not being taken note of.
At this stage, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said,
“One thing is clear a young woman has lost her life. Whether it is suicide or something else, for parents the moral is that it is better to have a divorced daughter than a dead one. There are several messages from her saying she was living in hell.”
The Chief Justice then stated,
“There is a law and procedure which has to be followed. We have our sympathies.”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi added,
“But this has happened within six months. If it had been dragged on for two years or so, that would be different. Reaction time also has to be considered.”
Towards the end of the proceedings, CJI Justice Surya Kant referred to earlier media reports and said,
“A news article published by India Today on May 18 raised questions regarding alleged institutional bias and discrepancies. The reported basis for the alleged lack of impartiality was that the deceased woman’s husband is a practising lawyer and her mother-in-law is a former district judge.”
He continued by explaining how this narrative influenced the Court’s decision to step in.
The CJI said,
“The question raised was whether undue influence could have been exercised over the investigation. A narrative was also created suggesting that a fair investigation was denied because of the involvement of members of the judiciary. It is for this reason that suo motu proceedings were initiated.”
The CJI further noted that the High Court had, in the meantime, directed a second post-mortem examination.
CJI Justice Surya Kant ordered,
“We are informed by SG Tushar Mehta that a second autopsy was conducted at Bhopal by a team from All India Institute of Medical Sciences Delhi. Thereafter, the body has been cremated.
The only issue which now survives for consideration is consent to the recommendation for a CBI probe. The Solicitor General has assured that the matter will be taken up with the authorities so that the CBI immediately takes over the investigation.”
The Chief Justice further addressed the concerns of the victim’s family and said,
“We would like to impress upon the victim’s family that instead of making statements in public or before the media, they should get their versions recorded before the investigating agency so that no prejudice or adverse impact is caused to the ongoing investigation.”
He also made a specific request to journalists who have been closely following the case. CJI Justice Surya Kant said,
“We also request the media to avoid recording statements of persons who are likely to be potential witnesses.”
Taking the appeal further, CJI Surya Kant also addressed the general public and said, We also request the public that they should refrain from speculation and to have trust and faith in one of the premier investigating agency. We are sure that in due course of time it will take the investigation to a conclusion.
Before concluding the order, the Chief Justice clarified the limits of the Court’s observations and said,
“While making these observations, it is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on any of the allegations or otherwise. It is entirely for the investigating agency to examine the different aspects of the matter.”
Towards the end of the hearing, Sidharth Luthra requested that their prayer seeking transfer of the trial should remain open.
Responding to this, CJI Surya Kant clarified that the Court’s directions would not affect the rights of any party and added that the instruction asking witnesses to avoid making media statements would also apply to any other potential accused.
Earlier, The Supreme Court of India has taken suo motu cognisance of the death of Twisha Sharma, a case that has triggered nationwide outrage over allegations of dowry harassment and abetment to suicide.
Additionally, On Friday, the Madhya Pradesh High Court issued notice on petitions challenging the anticipatory bail granted to retired judicial officer Giribala Singh, the mother-in-law of Sharma.
At the same time, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered a second post-mortem examination of Twisha Sharma after her family raised concerns about the initial autopsy and requested a more detailed probe. The family has repeatedly alleged that Sharma faced mental and physical harassment after her marriage and has questioned the fairness of the investigation. The case has also drawn demands for an independent inquiry.
Twisha Sharma, a 33-year-old woman from Noida, married Samarth Singh, a lawyer based in Bhopal, about five months ago. The couple had met through a dating application. She was found dead at her matrimonial home in Bhopal’s Katara Hills area on May 12, 2026. The incident drew nationwide attention after her family alleged dowry harassment, physical abuse, and possible foul play involving influential members of her in-law family.
Twisha reportedly met Samarth Singh through a dating app in 2024, and the couple married in December 2025. Samarth Singh’s mother, Giribala Singh, is a retired judicial officer and was reportedly serving as president of a consumer commission in Bhopal when the controversy came to public notice.
Twisha’s family alleged that her in-laws were responsible for her death, claiming she faced persistent domestic violence and harassment. They also demanded a second post-mortem to determine the exact cause of death. A First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged by the Katara Hills police station to investigate the death.
In the FIR, Twisha’s husband and her mother-in-law, Giribal Singh (a former judge) have been booked for dowry harassment. The family additionally questioned injuries allegedly found on Twisha’s body during the initial post-mortem.
Case Title: IN RE: ALLEGED INSTITUTIONAL BIAS AND PROCEDURAL DISCREPANCIES IN THE UNNATURAL DEATH OF A YOUNG GIRL AT HER MATRIMONIAL HOME