Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Supreme Court: While deliberating over this suo motu writ petition concerning allegations of institutional bias and questions over fairness and impartiality of the investigation conducted into the unnatural death of 33-year-old woman at her matrimonial home, the three-Judge Bench of Surya Kant, CJI, Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ., took note of the Solicitor General’s assurances to ensure swift hand over of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as the same has already been recommended by the Madhya Pradesh government.
The Court further emphasised that the family members of the victim and accused should get their statements recorded before the investigating agency so that no prejudice or adverse impact is caused to the ongoing investigation, rather than making statements before the public and media.
On 12 May 2026, the victim, who was a corporate professional and a former actor, died an unnatural death at her matrimonial home in Bhopal. On 18 May 2026, a news article was published on India Today followed by several media reports, alleging institutional bias and questioned the fairness and impartiality of the investigation being conducted by the State Police. The reason attributed to alleged bias was that the deceased victim’s husband is a practising lawyer and her mother-in-law is a retired District Judge.
The deceased victim’s family members questioned the response of the police authorities and alleged undue influence in the matter of investigation. A narrative was also created that a fair investigation was being denied on account of the involvement of the judiciary. It is in this backdrop that these suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, Madhya Pradesh High Court had taken note of one of the concerns raised by the deceased victim’s family members and directed that a second postmortem examination was necessary to clear all doubts from any quarter and to bolster the confidence of any common person in the entire process.
The Supreme Court was informed that in pursuance with the aforesaid directions, a second autopsy was conducted by a team of doctors from All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, at Bhopal; thereafter, the body was cremated.
The Court thus observed that the only issue that required consideration was the consent and recommendations made by the State of Madhya Pradesh seeking to hand over the investigation to the CBI. Since the State Government has already recommended the same, the Court took note of the assurances to ensure immediate transfer of the investigation to the CBI.
Thereafter, the Court urged the family members of the victim and accused to refrain from giving statements to media. The Court also urged the media to avoid recording statements of the persons who are likely to be potential witnesses or accused, as it may unnecessarily prejudge the outcome on certain issues, which are yet to be investigated. The Court also urged the public to refrain from speculation and have trust and faith in CBI, which, in due course of time will take the investigation to a logical conclusion.
The Court further clarified that through the present order, it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations or otherwise, and it is entirely left for the investigating agency to look into the different aspects/cross-versions of the parties. It was also clarified that the Court has not expressed opinion with respect to the rights or privileges of both sides, which they will be entitled to seek before an appropriate forum in accordance with the law.
Also Read: Can Complainant Wife and Her Family Be Prosecuted for ‘Giving Dowry’? Supreme Court Clarifies
[Alleged institutional bias and procedural discrepancies in the unnatural death of a young girl at her matrimonial home, In re, SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION(CRIMINAL) No(s).4/2026, order dated 25-5-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): By Courts Motion, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. Prashant Karia, AG Ms. Manisha Karia, AAG Mr. D.S. Parmar, AAG Ms. Silpi S. Swain, Adv. Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mr. Onkar Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. Ms. Shreya Singh, Adv. Ms. Avni Singh, Adv. Ms. Anamika Mishra, Adv. Ms. Pragati Katiyar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anurag Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, AOR Ms. Malvika Kapila, Adv. Mr. Harbans Shinh, Adv. Apporva Jain, Adv. Mr. Kanishk Sachdev, Adv. Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Sougat Pati, Adv. Ms. Rushika Patil, Adv. Ms. Ria Yadav, Adv. Mr. Nav Teji, aDv. Mr. Ankur Pandey, Adv. Mr. Anuj Karnatak, Adv. Ms. Rimmi Bharadwaj, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Gaurav, Adv. Mr. Gautam Matoria, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. adv. Mr. Yash Johri, Adv.
