Twisha Sharma's father alleges deliberate delay as body decomposes in Bhopal
Synopsis
Twisha Sharma's father has publicly accused Bhopal's police, administration, and judiciary of deliberately delaying a second post-mortem until the body decomposed — and now, with AIIMS Bhopal unable to preserve the remains further, the family is being urged to take custody of a body they say has been denied independent forensic scrutiny.
Key Takeaways
Navnidhi Sharma , father of Twisha Sharma , alleged on 20 May that Bhopal authorities deliberately delayed a second post-mortem to cause body decomposition.
Katara Hills Police Station wrote to the family urging them to collect the body after AIIMS Bhopal warned it lacks minus 80°C storage needed for preservation.
Twisha's post-mortem was conducted at AIIMS Bhopal on 13 May ; the body has been in the mortuary since.
The family has refused to take custody until a second post-mortem is conducted outside Madhya Pradesh , preferably at AIIMS New Delhi .
An application before the Bhopal magistrate court seeking the Delhi post-mortem was pending a ruling as of Wednesday .
Navnidhi Sharma, father of Twisha Sharma, on Wednesday, 20 May declared that his family has lost all hope of justice from the Bhopal administration, police, and judiciary, alleging that delays in granting permission for a second post-mortem were deliberately engineered to allow the body to decompose. His remarks came after Katara Hills Police Station in Bhopal wrote to the family urging them to take custody of Twisha's mortal remains from AIIMS Bhopal, citing the institute's warning that it lacks the minus 80 degrees Celsius storage facility required to prevent further decomposition.
What the Family Alleges
'These individuals have succeeded in their objective. Our fear — that they were deliberately delaying permission for a second post-mortem so that the body would decompose — has come true,' Navnidhi Sharma said. He described the situation as 'an act of torture,' stating the family was being forced to receive the body under duress.
Sharma called the prolonged judicial process 'a dark stain upon the justice system,' alleging that the family was 'shuttled from one court to another' without any authority taking suo motu cognizance of the matter. He specifically named Giribala Singh as someone who allegedly benefited from the delays, saying, 'ultimately, that is exactly what happened.'
The Police Letter and AIIMS Warning
Katara Hills Police Station wrote to the Sharma family on Wednesday after AIIMS Bhopal flagged that Twisha's body — which has been in the institute's mortuary since her post-mortem on 13 May — can no longer be adequately preserved without specialised cold storage that the hospital does not possess. The letter urged the family to take custody of the mortal remains.
The family has refused to accept the body until a second post-mortem is conducted outside Madhya Pradesh, maintaining that 'an independent medical opinion from a premier national institution will help restore public confidence in the investigation.'
The Demand for a Second Post-Mortem
The family's push for a second post-mortem at AIIMS, New Delhi stems from their stated desire to have the examination conducted at 'a medical institution of a commensurate standard.' They moved an application before the magistrate court in Bhopal on Tuesday seeking permission for the examination at the Delhi facility. The family had submitted its arguments before the court, and an order was awaited as of Wednesday.
Sharma alleged that the family received no support from Bhopal's police, administration, or judiciary throughout the process. 'The judges appear to be extending their full cooperation to the accused side. We no longer harbor any hope for justice from Bhopal,' he stated.
What Happens Next
The magistrate court's order on the second post-mortem application remains pending. With AIIMS Bhopal unable to preserve the body further, the family faces mounting pressure to take custody — a step they have so far refused to take without independent forensic examination. The case has drawn attention to questions around institutional accountability, the pace of judicial processes in sensitive cases, and the rights of grieving families to demand transparent investigations.
Point of View
They point to a failure not of one institution but of the entire chain — police, hospital, and judiciary — to act with the urgency a death investigation demands. The family's demand for an independent second opinion from a national institution is not unusual; what is unusual is that it has taken this long without resolution.
NationPress
9 Aug 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Twisha Sharma case?
Twisha Sharma is a deceased individual whose family has been seeking a second post-mortem outside Madhya Pradesh, alleging that the first examination at AIIMS Bhopal on 13 May was insufficient. The family has accused Bhopal authorities of deliberately delaying the process.
Why is the family refusing to take custody of the body?
The family has refused to collect Twisha's remains until a second post-mortem is conducted at AIIMS New Delhi, arguing that an independent examination by a premier national institution is necessary to ensure a credible investigation.
What did AIIMS Bhopal say about the body?
AIIMS Bhopal warned that Twisha's body requires minus 80 degrees Celsius storage to prevent decomposition — a facility the hospital does not have. This prompted Katara Hills Police Station to write to the family urging them to take custody of the remains.
What court action has the family taken?
The family moved an application before the magistrate court in Bhopal on Tuesday seeking permission for a second post-mortem at AIIMS New Delhi. Arguments were submitted and a court order was awaited as of Wednesday, 20 May.
Who is Giribala Singh, named by Twisha's father?
Navnidhi Sharma named Giribala Singh as someone he alleges benefited from the delays in granting a second post-mortem. He claimed the prolonged judicial process was set in motion to serve her interests, though these are the family's allegations and have not been established in court.
