Supreme Court Directs CBI To Take Over Twisha Sharma's Dowry Death Probe, Calls For Media Restraint

The Supreme Court has ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to immediately take over the probe into the shocking death of 33-year-old corporate professional Twisha Sharma.

The Court took suo motu cognizance of the alleged dowry death of 33-year-old. The court initiated the proceedings based on widespread media reports and the attending circumstances surrounding the case.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi observed, "The only issue, as of now, for our consideration is the consent and recommendations made by the State of Madhya Pradesh seeking to hand over the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Since the State Government has already recommended an investigation by the CBI, the learned Solicitor General has assured us that he will take up the matter with the authorities so as to ensure that the CBI immediately takes over the investigation and makes an endeavour to complete this case promptly...We would like to impress upon the family members of the victim as well as the accused side that, instead of making statements in public or before media platforms, they should get their versions recorded before the investigating agency so that no prejudice or adverse impact is caused to the ongoing investigation...As observed earlier, we also request the media to avoid recording statements of persons who are likely to be potential witnesses or accused, as it may unnecessarily imprint impressions or prejudge the outcome on certain issues which are yet to be investigated. We also request the general public to refrain from speculation and to have trust and faith in one of the premier investigating agencies, which, we are sure, will take the investigation to a logical conclusion in due course of time."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the State of Madhya Pradehs, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra appeared for the victim's family, and Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave appeared for the Accused.

The Court ordered, "Ms Twisha Sharma, a 33-year-old corporate professional and a former actor, unfortunately died an unnatural death at her matrimonial home in Bhopal on 12th May 2026. The news article published by India Today on 18th May 2026, followed by several subsequent media reports, alleged institutional bias and questioned the fairness and impartiality of the investigation which was being conducted by the state police...The reason, as it was perceived and reported, for the alleged lack of impartiality was that the husband of the deceased is a practicing lawyer and her mother-in-law is a retired judicial officer. It thus appears that the family members of the deceased questioned the response of the police authorities and alleged undue influence in the matter of investigation. A narrative was also created as if a fair investigation had been denied on account of the involvement of the judiciary."

During the hearing, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the State of Madhya Pradesh, confirmed that the second autopsy had already been conducted in Bhopal under the directions of the MP High Court. He further informed the bench that the state government had officially recommended handing over the entire investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). SG Mehta assured the court that he would coordinate with the relevant central authorities to ensure the CBI immediately assumes charge of the case.

Chief Justice Surya Kant expressed pain over the narrative that the judiciary was obstructing a fair trial—a concern that arose because the accused mother-in-law, Giribala Singh, is a former District Judge.

"It is unfortunate that it is being said that Judiciary is not permitting a fair trial," the Chief Justice remarked. "We have no doubt on our state agencies also or on the CBI that whoever will investigate will definitely take the investigation to the logical conclusion and will find the truth." The court expressed total confidence that both the victim’s family and the accused would cooperate fully with the premier central agency.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for the accused, flagged that Section 161 police statements were leaked to the newspapers the very next day.

SG Tushar Mehta countered, noting that the former judge had been "hopping from channel to channel almost maligning the deceased." Without attributing motives, Mehta added a sobering reflection, "For parents, the moral is that it's better to have a divorced daughter than a dead one...When she is repeatedly saying that I am living in a hell, please save me."

Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing Twisha’s family, raised structural concerns, pointing out a three-day delay by the state police in registering the initial FIR and a failure to properly preserve the crime scene evidence. He also noted that the accused mother-in-law was publicly producing her own Call Detail Records (CDRs) to control the narrative.

While acknowledging that media intervention originally brought the critical details of the tragedy to light, the Supreme Court issued strict directives to halt public speculation. The bench impressed upon both the victim's family and the accused to stop making public or televised statements, directing them to record their versions strictly before the investigating officers to avoid prejudicing the case.

Furthermore, the apex court requested media houses to refrain from transforming a family's grief into "sound bytes" and to avoid recording statements of potential witnesses, as doing so could compromise the CBI's upcoming investigation. The bench clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits or allegations of the case, leaving it entirely to the CBI to uncover the truth.

The Court also ordered, "While making the observations here and above, it is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations or otherwise. It is entirely for the investigating agency to look into the different aspects, versions, and cross-versions of the parties...Furthermore, it is clarified that the High Court and the lower courts in the State of Madhya Pradesh are free to proceed in accordance with the law if any petitions are pending or filed before them. Since this is a suo motu proceeding constituted by this Court, it should not be construed as if the other courts are denuded of their powers."

The tragedy unfolded on May 12, when authorities discovered the body of a resident of Noida and a former Miss Pune winner, at her matrimonial residence in Bhopal. She had married her husband five months prior to the two meeting on a dating app. Following her death, the family of the lady accused her in-laws of persistent domestic violence and intense harassment over dowry, which ultimately led them to demand a second post-mortem examination to verify the true cause of death. The Madhya Pradesh High Court subsequently allowed the family's petition for a second autopsy.

Serious allegations of institutional bias emerged due to the influential backgrounds of the accused. Her husband is a practicing advocate, while her mother-in-law is a former District Judge. Amid mounting pressure, the husa withdrew his anticipatory bail application from the High Court and surrendered before a trial court, which remanded him to seven-day police custody. Meanwhile, the Madhya Pradesh Police approached the High Court seeking the cancellation of the anticipatory bail previously granted to the mother-in-law.

Cause Title: In Re: Alleged Institutional Bias and Procedural Discrepancies in the Unnatural Death of Young Woman at Matrimonial Home (SMW(Crl) 4/2026)