The Supreme Court of India ordered a second autopsy for Twisha Sharma after taking suo motu cognisance of her death [1].
The judicial intervention follows allegations from Sharma's family regarding institutional bias and procedural failures during the initial investigation. The family raised concerns over blunt-force injuries and the absence of radiological examinations of neck structures [2].
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant directed the forensic team from AIIMS Delhi to perform the second autopsy [1]. This step aims to address discrepancies in the original findings before the court holds a scheduled hearing on May 25, 2024 [1].
Following the completion of the second post-mortem, Sharma's last rites were held in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh [1]. The proceedings occurred amidst ongoing legal scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding her death.
The case involves Sharma's husband, Samarth Singh, and her mother-in-law, Giribala Singh [1]. The court's decision to intervene directly reflects a need for independent verification of the cause of death to ensure a fair trial.
Legal representatives for the family have highlighted the need for a transparent process. The AIIMS Delhi team was tasked with providing a definitive forensic report to the court to resolve conflicting narratives regarding the injuries sustained by Sharma [2].
“The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of Twisha Sharma’s death”
The Supreme Court's decision to order a second autopsy via AIIMS Delhi suggests a lack of confidence in the initial forensic process. By taking suo motu cognisance, the judiciary is treating the potential for institutional bias as a significant legal concern, signaling that the accuracy of medical evidence is paramount in cases of alleged domestic or institutional negligence.
