New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has taken suo motu action in the suspicious death case of Delhi judicial officer Aman Sharma. The development has brought fresh attention to the circumstances surrounding his death and the ongoing police investigation.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant has sought details of the investigation from the Delhi Police Crime Branch. The case raises important questions about the safety of judicial officers and the need for a fair investigation.
Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance Of Judge Aman Sharma Death Case
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the death of judicial officer Aman Sharma on October 30, 2026. The matter came before the court on November 6, 2026.
Read also: Women’s Safety Under Spotlight As Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance Of Delhi-NCR Rape Cases
The bench included Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.
The court issued notice to the Delhi Police and asked the Crime Branch to provide a status report on the investigation. The report is expected to explain the progress of the investigation and the steps taken by the police so far.
Who Was Delhi Judicial Officer Aman Sharma
Aman Sharma was a 30-year-old judicial officer who served in the Delhi Judicial Services.
He graduated in law from Symbiosis Law School, Pune, and joined the Delhi Judicial Services on June 19, 2021.
During his judicial career, he handled several criminal and civil cases. In October 2025, he became the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) of North East District at Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
What Happened To Judge Aman Sharma
Aman Sharma died on May 2, 2026, at his residence in Delhi’s Safdarjung Enclave. His death was widely reported as a suspected suicide. However, the circumstances surrounding the incident later became the subject of a police investigation.
Following his death, his family raised allegations of mental harassment involving his wife Judge Swati and in-laws. These allegations are part of the investigation and should not be treated as proven facts.
Delhi Police Crime Branch Investigating The Case
Following a complaint by Aman Sharma’s father, Delhi Police registered a First Information Report (FIR) against his wife. The FIR reportedly includes provisions under Sections 61 and 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
- Section 61: Deals with criminal conspiracy.
- Section 108: Deals with abetment of suicide.
The investigation was later transferred to the Delhi Police Crime Branch. The Supreme Court has now asked the investigating agency to submit details about the progress of its investigation.
Why Is The Supreme Court’s Suo Motu Action Important
Suo motu means that a court takes up a matter on its own, without waiting for a formal petition from an affected person.
In this case, the Supreme Court’s intervention brings judicial attention to the investigation into the death of a serving judicial officer.
The court’s request for a status report can help it examine whether the investigation is progressing properly.
The development also highlights the importance of protecting judicial officers and ensuring that allegations involving members of the judiciary are investigated fairly and independently.
Read also: Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Action to Protect Aravalli Hills; CJI Suryakant to Hear Case on Monday
FAQs
Aman Sharma was a 30-year-old Delhi Judicial Services officer who joined the service in 2021. He was serving as the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) at Karkardooma Courts since October 2025.
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the suspicious death of Delhi judicial officer Aman Sharma to examine the matter and monitor the investigation. It has sought a status report from the Delhi Police Crime Branch.
The Delhi Police Crime Branch is investigating the case. The Supreme Court has asked the agency to submit a status report explaining the progress of the investigation.
