Court Refuses Second Autopsy in Twisha Sharma Death; Family Seeks Redress from State Leadership

Twisha Sharma, a twenty‑two‑year‑old resident of Delhi, was found deceased on 2 April 2026 under circumstances officially recorded as suicide, a determination that immediately provoked dissent from her immediate family, who alleged procedural irregularities and demanded a further forensic examination to allay lingering doubts concerning the precise cause of death.

The petition filed by the family’s counsel on 12 May 2026 sought judicial permission for a second post‑mortem, contending that the initial autopsy report, issued by the municipal forensic laboratory, was inconclusive, poorly documented, and failed to address discrepancies noted by independent medical experts consulted by the bereaved parties.

On 20 May 2026, the Delhi Metropolitan Court, presided over by Justice Anil Mehta, declined the petition, stating that no fresh material had been presented to justify the extraordinary expenditure of public resources on a repeat examination, thereby reinforcing the prosecutorial position that the original findings were sufficient for legal closure.

In the immediate aftermath of the court’s decision, the Sharma family travelled to the residence of the Honourable Chief Minister, Mr. Arvind Kumar, seeking an audience in which they hoped to secure a gubernatorial directive compelling the forensic authority to reopen the investigation, a meeting that, according to family representatives, concluded with polite assurances of “due diligence” yet without any concrete commitment to further action.

The police department, represented by Deputy Commissioner of Police Rohan Verma, reiterated that all statutory procedures had been observed, that the crime scene had been secured, and that the initial autopsy report, certified by Dr. Sunita Patel of the Delhi Forensic Science Laboratory, concluded the cause of death to be self‑inflicted injuries consistent with suicide, a conclusion that the department asserts is corroborated by witness statements and digital evidence.

Human‑rights organisations and several civil‑society advocacy groups, however, have issued statements condemning the perceived opacity of the investigative process, urging the state to adopt more transparent mechanisms for post‑mortem reviews, and warning that the denial of a second examination may further erode public confidence in the impartiality of forensic institutions.

In light of the foregoing, one must ask whether the judicial refusal to permit a second autopsy, predicated upon an alleged lack of new material, implicitly endorses a standard of evidentiary sufficiency that may be at odds with the principles of thoroughness and fairness that the rule of law purports to uphold, and whether such a standard, when applied to cases involving contested deaths, might inadvertently privilege administrative convenience over the demonstrable right of families to seek an exhaustive inquiry into the circumstances surrounding a loved one’s demise.

Furthermore, it becomes imperative to consider whether the chief minister’s “due diligence” assurances, couched in diplomatic language yet devoid of actionable directives, constitute a substantive exercise of executive responsibility or merely a perfunctory gesture designed to placate public outcry, and whether the existing mechanisms for inter‑departmental referral of forensic concerns provide sufficient latitude for independent oversight bodies to intervene when statutory agencies appear unwilling to revisit their own conclusions.

Published: May 20, 2026