New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said it was "slightly pained" by a "narrative" being created that the judiciary was not permitting a fair trial in the Twisha Sharma death case because it involved allegations against a former district judge and her lawyer son.
The oral observations fell from a three-member bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi during the hearing of a suo motu case initiated by the bench in the matter.
"A narrative was also created that a fair investigation was denied due to the involvement of the judiciary. That is why suo motu proceedings were initiated," the bench observed.
CJI Kant requested the media to refrain from "reducing the pain" of the deceased's family to "sound bites". While appreciating the media's role in highlighting the case "only because of which" it came to the notice of the bench, CJI Kant urged the media to "not take statements of friends or relatives, etc".
The CJI described the incident as "unfortunate" and said it was "unbearable" for the deceased's family. "We would like to impress upon the family of the victim that instead of making statements in public or before the media, they should get their versions recorded before the investigating agency (CBI) so that no prejudice or adverse impact is caused to the ongoing investigation. We also request the media to avoid recording statements of persons who are likely to be potential witnesses," the bench said in its order.
CJI Kant underscored that this was necessary to avoid premature impressions and was in the "best interest" of both parties involved. A similar request was also made to the public.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the MP government, informed the bench that while FIR was registered on May 15, the mother-in-law had filed for anticipatory bail on May 14 and secured relief on May 15.
The oral observations fell from a three-member bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi during the hearing of a suo motu case initiated by the bench in the matter.
"A narrative was also created that a fair investigation was denied due to the involvement of the judiciary. That is why suo motu proceedings were initiated," the bench observed.
CJI Kant requested the media to refrain from "reducing the pain" of the deceased's family to "sound bites". While appreciating the media's role in highlighting the case "only because of which" it came to the notice of the bench, CJI Kant urged the media to "not take statements of friends or relatives, etc".
The CJI described the incident as "unfortunate" and said it was "unbearable" for the deceased's family. "We would like to impress upon the family of the victim that instead of making statements in public or before the media, they should get their versions recorded before the investigating agency (CBI) so that no prejudice or adverse impact is caused to the ongoing investigation. We also request the media to avoid recording statements of persons who are likely to be potential witnesses," the bench said in its order.
CJI Kant underscored that this was necessary to avoid premature impressions and was in the "best interest" of both parties involved. A similar request was also made to the public.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the MP government, informed the bench that while FIR was registered on May 15, the mother-in-law had filed for anticipatory bail on May 14 and secured relief on May 15.
