“One section has started saying that because the mother-in-law is a former district judge… It is quite unfortunate that they have started saying that the judiciary is not permitting a fair trial,” the CJI said.

“We are slightly in pain because some of the sections, and we will request our media friends not to go for the statements of the victim’s family or the other family. Let things move as per law and procedure. The authority, the investigative agency, will follow up. Statements are being recorded,” Justice Kant added.

The CJI said, “We don’t want to cast aspersions against anyone. We have no reason to doubt that the victim side and the other side will fully cooperate, and we have no doubt in our state agencies and CBI that whoever investigates will bring the investigation to a logical conclusion and reach the truth. We are only intervening because this is the kind of narrative that is being created. Therefore, it is in the interest of all that some independent agency should take over it.”

“That would be done. Why this has started – one of the potential accused, the learned former judge, started giving interviews, hopping from one channel to another, almost maligning the deceased. Therefore, there is a reaction and a counterreaction,” said SG Mehta.

On May 23, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the case registered under the title “In RE: Alleged Institutional Bias and Procedural Discrepancies In The Unnatural Death Of A Young Girl At Her Matrimonial Home”.

‘There is no cooperation’

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for the accused, told the bench also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, “My statement under Section 161 of CrPC is in the papers today. I am assuring you on instruction that there will be nothing. We are not interested in a media trial.”

However, Mehta said there was non-cooperation from the accused. “The FIR was registered on May 14. The mother-in-law moves for an anticipatory bail on May 15. She is granted anticipatory bail on the same day. It is under challenge by the victim and the state,” he said.

“The difficulty is that despite our repeated requests to her to come and get her statement recorded, there is no cooperation. We informed her that we would come there and record her statement. She said no, she will not get her statement recorded. We could with difficulty seize the mobile devices, etc. The investigation is ongoing, and I do not want to prejudice either side. But there is a non-cooperation,” the law officer added.

Dave said the mother-in-law’s statement was recorded twice.

CJI Kant said they had “absolutely no doubt on the state police”. “They must be there, and they will continue to deal with absolute fairness and impartiality. We do not want to demoralise the state police. They must be doing a very good job.”

Mehta said the state had recommended a CBI probe to avoid fingers being pointed at the state police.

The CJI said the action was “very fair and completely above board because the moment a narrative was created, they said please don’t doubt us, our bona fides are very clear.” “Once the state has recommended (CBI probe), there is no need for us to issue a direction,” Justice Kant added.

“No. CBI would take over,” the SG said.

When the CJI said, “And they should do so immediately”, Mehta said, “I will ensure that it (necessary formalities) happens today.”

“We will ensure that whatever unfortunate incident has taken place, it must be fairly and independently investigated. That’s all,” CJI Kant added.

“Whatever statement you want to make, make it before the prescribed authority, that is, the investigating agency,” Justice Kant said and also advised the media to exercise caution.

Mehta also praised the media and said, “It’s not a subject matter to be sensationalised. At the same time, it is because of this media intervention that several things have taken place”.

“Undoubtedly, they helped a lot. Our only concern is not to…statements. After all, it came to our notice also only because of that,” the CJI said.

Twisha, 33, was found dead at her matrimonial home in Bhopal on May 12, less than six months after her marriage. While the postmortem conducted at AIIMS Bhopal concluded that the cause of death was “asphyxia due to antemortem hanging by ligature,” her family alleged murder and destruction of evidence.

Her husband, Samarth Singh, a lawyer whose licence to practise has been suspended by the Bar Council of India, and her mother-in-law, Giribala Singh, a retired judge, are accused in what is being seen as a dowry death case.

The case has spiralled into one of Madhya Pradesh’s most high-profile criminal investigations, marked by allegations of dowry harassment, evidence tampering, leaked CCTV clips, disputed forensic findings and claims of influence exerted by the accused family.

On May 22, the Bar Council of India suspended Samarth Singh’s licence to practise law, saying “the allegations are grave and have a direct bearing upon the dignity, discipline and public image of the legal profession”.