The Supreme Court on Monday heard suo motu proceedings arising out of the death of Twisha Sharma in Madhya Pradesh, during which Solicitor General Tushar Mehta made a poignant observation on matrimonial distress, stating that “it is better to have a divorced daughter than a dead one.”
The matter was heard by a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi amid allegations that they were not receiving a fair investigation because the deceased’s husband is a practising advocate and the mother-in-law is a retired judicial officer.
At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state of Madhya Pradesh, submitted that one of the “potential accused, the Mother-in-law Giribala Singh, had been “giving interviews, hopping from one channel to another and almost maligning the deceased, resulting in reaction and counter-reaction.
The Court urged both sides to avoid public statements and refrain from turning the matter into a media spectacle. CJI Surya Kant observed:
“Please don’t go for recording statements of the victim’s family or reducing their pain into sound bites, please. That’s not the way anybody should do it. Because this is a very unfortunate incident that has taken place.”
SG also remarked that: “It’s not a subject matter which can be sensationalised.”
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra raised concerns regarding the delay in registration of FIR, alleged failure to preserve evidence and apprehensions of institutional bias. The Court clarified that such issues pertained to investigation and should be examined by the investigating agency. The Bench observed:
“We will ensure that whatever unfortunate incident has taken place, it must be fairly and independently and impartially investigated.”
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta made broader remarks about parental intervention in troubled marriages. The SG stated:
“I am saying, in general, for the parents, it is better to take that call immediately rather than losing the daughter. It is always better for all parents… the moral is that it is 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.”
The Court also noted that a narrative had emerged suggesting denial of fair investigation because the husband was a practising lawyer and the mother-in-law a former judicial officer. The Bench observed that transfer of the investigation to an independent agency would therefore be in the interest of all concerned.
The Supreme Court recorded that the Madhya Pradesh Government had already recommended transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), while the Solicitor General assured the Court that the necessary notification from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) would be expedited so that the CBI could immediately take over the probe.
The Court further took note of the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s direction for a second post-mortem examination by doctors from AIIMS Delhi in order to “clear all doubts and bolster confidence” in the process.
In its order, the Supreme Court requested both the victim’s side and the accused side, as well as potential witnesses and accused persons, to avoid making statements in the media and instead place their versions before the investigating agency so that no prejudice is caused to the ongoing investigation.
The Bench also appealed to the public to refrain from speculation and to repose faith in the investigating process.