Why Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance in Twisha Sharma death case?

A bench led by Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi observed that a narrative was being created that the judiciary would not permit a fair investigation or trial because one of the accused, Samarth Singh, belongs to the legal fraternity, and the mother-in-law is a former judicial officer. The Court said this perception had caused concern and was one of the reasons behind initiating the suo motu proceedings.

"We are slightly pained at... 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. We do not doubt our state agencies or the CBI, either. It is only because this kind of narrative is being created. We will ensure whatever unfortunate incident has taken place is fairly and impartially investigated," the CJI observed.

The Bench clarified that it initiated the suo motu action specifically to dispel this "pained" perception and to ensure that the investigation remains impartial and beyond reproach.

During the hearing, the Court urged both sides to place their versions before the investigating agency instead of speaking through media platforms.

"Whatever statement you want to make, go make it to the investigating agency instead of reducing their pain into sound bites," the Court said orally.

The apex court further urged Twisha's husband, Samarth Singh and her mother-in-law, a former judge, to refrain from making public statements on the ongoing investigation into Twisha Sharma's death in her matrimonial home in Katara Hills, Bhopal.

The Court also requested media organisations to avoid recording statements of persons who may become potential witnesses or accused in the case so that no prejudice is caused to the ongoing investigation.

"We would like to impress upon the family members of the victim that instead of making statements in public or media platforms, they should get their version recorded before the investigating agency so that no prejudice or adverse impact is caused on the ongoing investigation," the Court observed in its order.

During the hearing, the Madhya Pradesh government informed the Court that the probe would be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Court also noted that several developments had taken place since the Court initiated proceedings, including the Madhya Pradesh High Court directing a second post-mortem examination "to bolster the confidence of citizens" in the investigation. The Court also expressed satisfaction after noticing that, following the second post-mortem, the body of the victim had been cremated.

The Court further said that the general public should also refrain from speculation and maintain faith in the premier investigating agency that would carry the probe to its logical conclusion.

Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Madhya Pradesh government, submitted that one of the potential accused -- the deceased's mother-in-law -- had been appearing before media outlets and making statements allegedly maligning the deceased.

Mehta informed the Court that the FIR was registered on May 15 and that the mother-in-law moved an anticipatory bail plea a day earlier, on May 14 and was granted relief the next day. The State government also submitted that she was maligning the victim in her statements before the media and not cooperating with the investigation.

"The mother-in-law is hopping media channels and making statements that almost malign the victim", Mehta said.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Twisha Sharma's family, raised concerns regarding the alleged delay in registration of the FIR and submitted that certain issues would need to be addressed until the CBI formally takes over the probe.

However, the Supreme Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the investigation and left it open to the investigating agency to conduct the probe independently and bring it to its logical conclusion.

In another development in the matter, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday fixed May 27 at 2:30 PM for hearing pleas filed by Twisha Sharma's father and the Madhya Pradesh government challenging the anticipatory bail granted to Twisha's mother-in-law, Giribala Singh, in the unnatural death case.

A single-judge bench of Justice Devnarayan Mishra also issued notice to Giribala Singh, seeking her response to the pleas moved by the victim's father and the State government.

During the hearing, the Court had initially scheduled the matter for May 29. However, after considering vehement submissions by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Madhya Pradesh government and seeking an urgent hearing, the bench agreed to prepone the matter to May 27.

"If she can file anticipatory bail and get it overnight, then why can't we seek urgency?" Mehta submitted before the High Court. (ANI)