Twisha Sharma Death Case Hearing: Solicitor General Says a Divorced Daughter Is Better Than Facing Such a Tragedy
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the public narrative around the judiciary’s handling of the case began after one of the potential accused, the deceased woman’s mother-in-law, gave repeated interviews across television channels, allegedly maligning the deceased. He said the interviews helped shape perceptions before the investigation had progressed fully.
Mehta informed the court that the FIR in the matter was registered on May 15. He added that the mother-in-law had moved the court for anticipatory bail on May 14 and was granted relief the next day. According to him, that order is now under challenge. He also said the investigation team had repeatedly asked her to have her statement recorded, but there had been no cooperation.
The Solicitor General stated that investigators had told her they would come to record her statement, but she declined. He further said that the mobile devices could be seized only after difficulty, indicating resistance or delay in collecting evidence. Mehta emphasized that the investigation was still ongoing and that he did not want to prejudice the case by disclosing too many details in open court.
His remarks were made in response to the Chief Justice of India’s observations about a narrative being created around the judiciary’s handling of the matter. Mehta sought to clarify the sequence of events and the basis for the concerns raised by the prosecution side. He suggested that the media appearances by the mother-in-law contributed to the public framing of the issue and complicated the investigation.
The matter appears to involve sensitive allegations and a contested legal process, with the state arguing that key accused persons are not fully cooperating with investigators. The prosecution’s position is that the case should be seen in the context of the FIR date, the anticipatory bail application filed before arrest, and the continuing efforts to secure statements and digital evidence.
The comments underline the tension between media coverage, public perception, and ongoing criminal investigation. Mehta’s statement indicated that investigators were still gathering material and had not completed the probe, making it necessary to avoid conclusions that could affect the case. The court was told that the process of recording statements and collecting devices had encountered obstacles.
Overall, the submissions highlighted the prosecution’s claim that the unfolding narrative was influenced not by judicial conduct alone but by public statements made by a person who may later be named as an accused. The investigation remains active, and further legal scrutiny is expected as the challenge to the anticipatory bail order proceeds.
