Supreme Court Takes Notice of Twisha Sharma's Unnatural Death Case

The Supreme Court of India has taken significant steps in the investigation of Twisha Sharma's unnatural death, addressing concerns about media influence and ensuring a fair inquiry. During the hearing, the court emphasized the importance of impartiality and urged both parties to refrain from public statements that could impact the investigation. The Chief Justice expressed confidence in the investigative agencies and called for cooperation from all involved. As the case unfolds, the court's commitment to a thorough and unbiased examination remains paramount, highlighting the delicate balance between public interest and judicial integrity.

By Narendra Chaudhary May 25, 2026, 12:34 IST

Supreme Court's Involvement in Twisha Sharma's Case

The Supreme Court of India has initiated a significant hearing regarding the high-profile case of 32-year-old actor-model Twisha Sharma, who died under unnatural circumstances in Bhopal. During the proceedings, intense and emotional debates surrounding dowry harassment and marital disputes unfolded in the courtroom. The bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, emphasized that the court's primary objective is to ensure an impartial and independent investigation without any bias.

Court's Caution Against Media Trials

The court also urged caution regarding media trials and public speculation surrounding the case. This hearing was prompted by the Supreme Court's own decision to take cognizance of the matter, following allegations of institutional bias and procedural lapses in the investigation of the actress's death at her in-laws' home.

Details of the Case

The case, registered as "In Re: Alleged institutional bias and procedural discrepancies in the unnatural death of a young girl at her matrimonial home," was heard by the bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud. The Chief Justice noted that one of the primary concerns—conducting a second autopsy—has already been resolved.

Concerns Over Public Discourse

At the outset of the hearing, the Chief Justice expressed concern over the public discourse surrounding the case, stating, "We are saddened by some of the things we have seen," and requested the media to refrain from relying on statements from either the victim's family or the accused. The bench insisted that the investigation should proceed according to legal protocols.

Judicial Integrity and Cooperation

Addressing the suggestion that the accused's mother, a former district judge, could influence the investigation, the Chief Justice remarked that it is unfortunate to imply that the judiciary is obstructing a fair inquiry. The bench expressed confidence that both the victim's and accused's sides would fully cooperate with the investigation, and they trust the integrity of the investigative agencies involved.

Media's Role in the Investigation

During the proceedings, senior lawyer Siddharth Dave raised concerns about statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC being published in newspapers the following day. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered, alleging that a former judge was tarnishing the victim's reputation across various media channels. He also informed the court that a recommendation had been made to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Call for Restraint

The Chief Justice reiterated that the court's main concern is to ensure a fair investigation. The bench urged both parties to avoid public statements and instead communicate their concerns to the investigative authorities. The Chief Justice emphasized, "We request that any statements you wish to make be directed to the investigating agency," and cautioned the media against sensationalizing the family's pain.

Public Statements and Investigative Integrity

Solicitor General Mehta acknowledged that media attention has played a role in bringing certain aspects of the case to light. He stated, "This should not be sensationalized, but the media's involvement has revealed many facts." The bench clarified that while they do not oppose media reporting, they expect restraint during the ongoing investigation.

Concerns Over Evidence Preservation

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra expressed concerns regarding the investigation, alleging delays in filing the FIR and negligence in preserving evidence. He also claimed that the accused's mother was presenting call detail records herself.

Court's Final Remarks

Before concluding the hearing, the court reiterated that its comments should not be interpreted as judgments on the merits of the allegations. The bench clarified, "We make these remarks to emphasize that we have not expressed any opinion on the allegations or any other matter, and it is entirely the responsibility of the investigative agency to examine the various aspects of the case."