Supreme Court Responds to Allegations of Judicial Bias
The Supreme Court of India expressed concern on Monday over claims that the judiciary was protecting the accused in the high-profile Twisha Sharma death case. The allegations arose due to the involvement of a former district judge and a lawyer among the accused. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, was presiding over this suo motu case.
CJI Surya Kant implored the media to refrain from recording statements from those closely associated with the case, such as friends or relatives. He stated, “We are slightly pained. We request media not take statements of friends or relatives. The mother-in-law is a former district judge and it is unfortunate that it is being said judiciary is derailing the trial.”
Media Caution and Public Statements
The Court’s order further advised the family of the victim to provide their statements to the investigating agency rather than the media, to prevent any potential prejudice or negative impact on the ongoing investigation. The Court emphasized the importance of avoiding premature conclusions and urged the public to trust the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the premier investigative agency now tasked with the case.
Background of the Case
Twisha Sharma, a former Miss Pune, was found deceased on May 12, 2026, under suspicious circumstances. Married for just five months to Samarth Singh, a lawyer from Bhopal with connections to the judiciary, her death has sparked allegations of domestic violence and dowry harassment against her in-laws.
An FIR was filed at Katara Hills police station, leading to charges against both Samarth Singh and his mother, Giribala Singh, a retired judge and current President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Giribala Singh received anticipatory bail from a sessions court, which is now being contested by Twisha’s father in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Meanwhile, Samarth Singh’s request for anticipatory bail was denied, and his bar license was suspended by the Bar Council of India.
More Read
Judiciary’s Involvement and Investigation Progress
In response to concerns over potential judicial bias, the Supreme Court initiated sua sponte proceedings to ensure a fair investigation. They noted that the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ordered a second postmortem, conducted by a team from AIIMS, to further probe the circumstances of Sharma’s death.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta confirmed that the Madhya Pradesh government would cooperate with the CBI’s investigation. During the hearing, the Court reiterated its request for media restraint, highlighting the impact of media coverage on the case’s progress.
Legal Proceedings and Future Steps
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the involvement of media and public statements had influenced the case. Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave expressed concerns that police statements were being published in newspapers, while Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra pointed out delays in the police investigation.
More Read
Expressing sympathy for the victim’s family, the Court assured that a fair trial would now proceed under the CBI’s supervision. The hearing concluded with the Court agreeing to keep open a plea for transferring the case trial, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of all legal procedures.
