‘Don’t reduce pain into sound bites’: CBI to probe Twisha Sharma death; SC asks media, families to avoid public statements

The Supreme Court on Monday cautioned against a “media narrative” in the Twisha Sharma death case and asked both the victim’s family and the accused side to avoid making public statements as the Madhya Pradesh government informed the court that the probe would be transferred to the CBI.

The top court, which had initiated suo motu proceedings over allegations of procedural lapses and institutional bias in the investigation, said it wanted the matter to be examined in a “fair, independent and unbiased” manner. A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the atmosphere around the case had become concerning, particularly with competing public claims emerging through television debates and social media statements.

Advertisement

“We are slightly at pain,” the CJI observed during the hearing, while urging restraint from all stakeholders. “Don’t go for the statements of the victim’s family or the other family. Otherwise, one section is saying the judiciary is not allowing a fair trial.”

The case pertains to the death of model-turned-actor Twisha Sharma, who was found hanging at her matrimonial home in Bhopal’s Katara Hills area on May 12. Her family has alleged dowry harassment, cruelty and abetment to suicide against her husband, suspended lawyer Samarth Singh, and her mother-in-law, a retired judge.

Supreme Court flags media narrative around Twisha Sharma case

The Bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, said the court had no doubts about the credibility of either the state agencies or the CBI, but added that “a kind of narrative” was being built publicly around the case.

“We will ensure that the unfortunate incident that took place is fairly and impartially investigated,” the CJI said.

During the hearing, the apex court noted that multiple concerns had surfaced in the matter, including issues linked to the second post-mortem examination and the cremation having already taken place. The court also recorded that state authorities themselves had recommended a CBI inquiry.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Madhya Pradesh government, informed the Bench that the central agency would take over the probe immediately and the required formalities would be completed without delay.

Mehta also submitted that one of the potential accused in the case, the deceased’s mother-in-law, had allegedly been giving media interviews and making statements against Twisha Sharma. He further told the court that the FIR was registered on May 15 and that the accused had secured anticipatory bail the same day.

The state government also claimed that the mother-in-law was not cooperating with investigators.

Court asks parties to speak to probe agency, not television cameras

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the deceased woman’s side, raised concerns over the delay in registration of the FIR and said certain issues would continue to remain relevant till the CBI formally assumes control of the investigation.

However, the Supreme Court clarified that it was not examining the merits of the allegations and had left all aspects open for investigation by the CBI.

“Whatever statement you want to make, go make it to the investigating agency instead of reducing their pain into sound bites,” the Bench observed.

In its order, the court said family members should place their versions before investigators instead of speaking publicly in a manner that could affect the ongoing probe.

The Bench also appealed to media organisations not to record or air statements from individuals who may later emerge as witnesses or accused persons in the case.

“They may not unnecessarily prejudge one or the other issue,” the court said.

The Supreme Court further urged the public to avoid speculation and place faith in the CBI, describing it as “one of the premier investigating agencies” capable of taking the case to its logical conclusion.

At the same time, the court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations.

“We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the investigation, and it is left open for the investigating agency to proceed in accordance with law,” the Bench ordered.