The Supreme Court on Monday (May 25, 2026) backed the Madhya Pradesh government’s call to handover the former model-turned-actor Twisha Sharma death case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), saying it had stepped in with awareness of a “narrative” created that the judiciary was involved in denying her family a fair probe.

The court had registered the suo motu case titled ‘In Re: Alleged Institutional Bias and Procedural Differences In The Unnatural Death Of A Young Girl At Her Matrimonial Home’ late on the evening of Saturday (May 23, 2026), posting the case for urgent hearing on Monday (May 25, 2026).

When the case was called up first on the list before a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court of the State’s decision to handover the investigation to the CBI.

“The CBI must make an endeavour to complete the probe promptly,” Chief Justice Kant said.

Mr. Mehta briefed the court that a second autopsy had been conducted by a team of doctors from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences flown to Bhopal from the national capital. The results of the second autopsy were still awaited.

The 33-year-old woman was found dead at her matrimonial home in Bhopal on the night of May 12. She was married to a lawyer, Samarth Singh, on December 25, 2025. Her family has levelled allegations of mental harassment and financial demands against Mr. Singh and his mother Giribala Singh, a former district judge.

The apex court’s inclination to intervene, and the handing over of the case to the Central agency, came amidst widely publicised interviews by the retired district judge, and Ms. Sharma’s family, who have alleged procedural lapses, institutional bias and tampering with evidence.

The court urged family members on both sides to make their statements before the investigating authorities rather than to the media.

The court asked the media to avoid recording statements of persons “who are likely to be potential witnesses/accused and unnecessarily pre-judge outcome on certain issues which have to be probed”.

While Mr. Mehta submitted that the husband’s family had refused to cooperate with the investigation, senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for the retired district judge, said his client has given her statement twice.

Ms. Sharma’s family counsel, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, alleged a three-day delay in the registration of the First Information Report, and a failure on the part of the State Police to preserve the case evidence.

The court assured the family that the case would be “fairly and impartially investigated”.

“Our request to you (both families) is that whatever statements you want to make, don’t go to the media, but to the competent authorities,” Chief Justice Kant said.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi, on the Bench with Justice Vipul Pancholi, stressed that the seriousness of the case should not be undermined. He emphasised that a young woman has died an unnatural death within six months of marriage.

Mr. Mehta empathised with the bereaved family, saying that, for parents, it was better to have a divorced daughter rather than face such an unfortunate incident.

“Our sympathies are with them,” Chief Justice Kant responded.