On a tense Sunday evening in Bhopal, the smoke from the funeral pyre at Bhadbhada cremation ground marked the end of a agonizing 12-day wait for the family of Twisha Sharma, actor and former model. The 33-year-old was finally laid to rest on May 24, 2026, only after a four-member team of senior doctors from All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Delhi completed a court-ordered second post-mortem examination. It was a somber conclusion to a week defined by legal battles, public outrage, and questions about whether justice would be served.
The delay wasn’t just bureaucratic—it was visceral. For nearly two weeks, Twisha’s body remained preserved in the mortuary at AIIMS Bhopal, while her family fought for what they believed was a thorough forensic investigation. Their demand? A second autopsy conducted by experts from outside the state, specifically from Delhi, to rule out any local bias or oversight.
A Race Against Time and Bias
Here’s the thing: trust in the initial investigation had already eroded. When Twisha was found hanging at her matrimonial home in Katara Hills on May 12, 2026, the police registered an FIR against her husband, Samarth Singh, advocate, and his mother, Giribala Singh, former district judge, alleging dowry harassment and abetment to suicide. But the family felt the first post-mortem, conducted locally, missed critical details.
They weren’t alone in their skepticism. On May 19, a local court in Bhopal actually dismissed an application seeking a second autopsy at AIIMS Delhi, raising concerns about the prolonged storage of the body. That decision sparked immediate backlash. Protests erupted, and the narrative shifted from a tragic personal loss to a broader question of institutional integrity.
Then came the twist. On Friday, May 22, the Madhya Pradesh High Court stepped in with a decisive order. Overruling the lower court’s hesitation, it directed that a second autopsy be conducted—but not in Delhi. Instead, a special flight was arranged to bring the AIIMS Delhi medical board to Bhopal. The message was clear: the procedure must happen expeditiously, and it must be impartial.
The Autopsy and Its Implications
The four-doctor team arrived late Saturday night, May 23. By Sunday morning, they were at work inside the sterile confines of AIIMS Bhopal. According to reports, the family had requested a multidisciplinary approach—combining forensic pathology, radiology, and toxicology—to ensure no stone was left unturned. This wasn’t just about confirming the cause of death; it was about validating the family’s claim that this wasn’t a simple suicide.
"It is good. It is a positive sign that the judiciary is also taking action," one family supporter said, reflecting the fragile hope that permeated the atmosphere. The sentiment was shared by many who watched the proceedings unfold via media updates. The involvement of top-tier medical experts from the capital added a layer of credibility that the local process lacked.
Once the examination concluded, the body was released immediately. The cremation took place that same evening, closing a painful chapter but opening another: the legal reckoning.
Legal Storm Clouds Gather
While Twisha’s family sought closure, the legal machinery was just getting started. Her husband, Samarth Singh, had been absconding since the day of her death. He evaded arrest for ten days, prompting investigators to probe who might have helped him hide. Allegations surfaced that influential individuals made phone calls to shield him—a claim that has ignited fury among citizens demanding accountability.
By the time the second autopsy began, Singh had withdrawn his anticipatory bail plea and signaled his intent to surrender. A local court remanded him to seven-day police custody, marking a significant shift in the investigation’s momentum. Meanwhile, his mother, Giribala Singh, stated she had yet to be contacted by police for her statement, adding another layer of complexity to the timeline.
The stakes escalated further when the Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognisance of the case. Citing alleged institutional bias and procedural discrepancies, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, scheduled hearings for May 25, 2026. This unprecedented move signals that the apex court views the case as more than a local tragedy—it’s a test of judicial fairness.
What’s Next?
The Madhya Pradesh government has recommended a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe, a request that could centralize the inquiry and remove potential local interference. If accepted, the CBI would take over from the state police, bringing federal resources and expertise to bear on the evidence gathered during the second autopsy.
For now, the focus remains on the forensic report. The findings will either corroborate the family’s allegations of foul play or support the initial suicide ruling. Either way, the outcome will influence how India handles high-profile cases involving powerful families and alleged systemic bias.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was a second autopsy necessary in the Twisha Sharma case?
The family of Twisha Sharma alleged that the initial post-mortem conducted in Bhopal failed to adequately address signs of dowry harassment and potential foul play. They demanded a second examination by independent experts from AIIMS Delhi to ensure a multidisciplinary forensic analysis, including radiological and pathological reviews, to verify if the death was truly a suicide or involved external factors.
Who are the key accused in the case?
The primary accused are Twisha Sharma’s husband, Samarth Singh, an advocate, and his mother, Giribala Singh, a former district judge. An FIR was registered against them for alleged dowry harassment and abetment to suicide following Twisha’s death at their matrimonial home in Katara Hills, Bhopal.
What role did the Supreme Court play in this case?
The Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognisance of the case due to allegations of institutional bias and procedural delays. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi is set to hear the matter on May 25, 2026, to oversee the investigation’s integrity and ensure fair legal processes are followed.
Why was there a 12-day delay in cremating Twisha Sharma’s body?
The delay occurred because Twisha’s family contested the initial autopsy results and sought a second examination by experts from AIIMS Delhi. Legal battles ensued, including a rejected plea by a local court and subsequent intervention by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The body remained in the AIIMS Bhopal mortuary until the court-ordered second autopsy was completed on May 24, 2026.
Is the CBI investigating the case?
The Madhya Pradesh government has recommended a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the circumstances of Twisha Sharma’s death. While the recommendation has been made, the formal takeover of the investigation by the CBI depends on approval from the central government, which would aim to ensure an unbiased and thorough inquiry given the high-profile nature of the accused.