SC Curbs Multiple Psychological Evaluations of Child Victims in Custody Battles

Prioritizing the psychological safety of a child victim over adversarial parental claims, the Supreme Court has modified a High Court order that directed a four-member expert panel to evaluate a minor child in a custody dispute involving allegations of sexual abuse.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh emphasized that the justice delivery system must act as a protective shield for children, ensuring they are not subjected to processes that aggravate trauma. The Court was hearing an appeal against a Bombay High Court decision that substituted a single independent expert with a panel of experts to evaluate a 10-year-old child for the purpose of facilitating reconnection with her father, who is facing charges under the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The Primacy of Child Welfare Over Parental Rights

The Court observed that in matters of custody and access, the rights of litigating parents are subservient to the paramount consideration of the child's welfare. This principle is even more critical when the child is an alleged victim of sexual abuse. The Court noted that the Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 mandate child-friendly procedures that avoid repeated exposure to legal processes.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The justice delivery system cannot treat the child as a mere evidentiary object subjected to repeated forensic or psychological scrutiny at the instance of contesting litigants. The psychological integrity of the child constitutes an independent and paramount consideration which courts are duty-bound to preserve."

Guidelines for Psychological Evaluation of Minors

To prevent "secondary victimisation," the Court issued a set of 20 guidelines for courts dealing with the psychological evaluation of children. It held that evaluations should not be directed as a matter of routine and must follow the principle of "minimum intrusion."

The Court issued the following guidelines:

(i)                 In all proceedings, more particularly, involving a minor child alleged to be a victim under the POCSO Act, the paramount consideration shall always remain the welfare, emotional security, dignity and psychological well-being of the child;

(ii)              Psychological or psychiatric evaluation of a child victim shall not be directed as a matter of routine merely because issues of custody, visitation or parental access arise between litigating parents/relatives;

(iii)            Before directing any such evaluative process concerning the child, the court shall record specific reasons demonstrating the necessity of such evaluation, the purpose sought to be achieved, the relevance of the proposed exercise, and the reasons why less intrusive alternatives would not sufficiently subserve the interests of the child;

(iv)             Courts shall adopt the principle of minimum intrusion and minimum exposure while directing psychological interaction with child victims;

(v)               Repeated, overlapping or multi-layered psychological evaluations of a child victim should ordinarily be avoided unless compelling circumstances exist and reasons are specifically recorded in writing;

(vi)             Where psychological evaluation is considered necessary, ordinarily the same should be conducted by one independent and court-appointed child psychologist, psychiatrist or similarly qualified professional possessing expertise in child psychology and child trauma;

(vii)           Constitution of a panel of experts should remain an exceptional course to be adopted only where the court is satisfied that the peculiar facts of the case render such course indispensable;

(viii)         The expert appointed by the court must remain demonstrably independent and neutral and should ordinarily not have any prior engagement with either litigating party, except purely on professional basis;

(ix)             The evaluative process shall remain child-centric and welfare-oriented and shall not assume the character of an adversarial, investigative or evidence-gathering exercise intended to advance the case of either party in pending criminal or custody proceedings;

(x)               Courts shall remain cognizant of the possibility of retraumatisation arising from repeated narration of traumatic events by child victims and shall regulate the number of sessions, duration of interaction, number of professionals interacting with the child, and overall manner of evaluation.

(xi)             Any process of psychological evaluation directed by a court shall remain consistent with the child-friendly framework contemplated under Sections 24, 33(5), 36 and 39 of the POCSO Act and the principles underlying traumainformed adjudication;

(xii)           The identity of the child, disclosures made during evaluation, therapeutic records and evaluative reports shall remain strictly confidential and shall not ordinarily be disclosed beyond what is necessary for adjudication;

(xiii)         Audio or video recordings, session notes and therapeutic material generated during evaluation shall not ordinarily be made directly accessible to parties except upon specific judicial determination of necessity;

(xiv)          Evaluative reports prepared pursuant to orders of the court shall remain confined strictly to the purpose for which evaluation was directed and shall not contain findings concerning criminal culpability;

(xv)            Where the child is already under the care of a qualified therapist, counsellor or support professional and the court is satisfied regarding the competence and neutrality of such professional, substitution of the existing therapeutic environment should ordinarily be avoided;

(xvi)          In cases involving virtual or hybrid interaction with experts, courts shall ensure adequate safeguards concerning privacy, emotional safety, absence of external influence and overall suitability of such mode considering the age and psychological condition of the child; and

(xvii)       The court directing evaluation shall retain continuing supervisory jurisdiction over the process and may modify, regulate or discontinue the same if continuation thereof appears likely to adversely affect the welfare or psychological well-being of the child.

(xviii)     The court must ensure that psychological assessment of the child is conducted from time to time, as the child grows, as the court may consider appropriate, if required in consultation with the concerned child psychologist, so as to assuage itself that the best interest and welfare of the child are being safeguarded.

(xix)          Since the psychological growth and welfare of the child is closely intertwined with the psychological condition of the parents, it would be desirable for the courts to call for psychological assessment reports of both the parents as it will aid in passing appropriate orders in respect of the welfare of the child, since the courts also exercises the jurisdiction of parens patriae over the child and thus has an onerous responsibility for the welfare of the child.

(xx)            Since the courts are dealing with proceedings permeated with highly emotionally charged parents, it would be desirable to have the assistance of the experts/child psychologists/psychologists about the mental health of the child as well as the parents as an additional tool to fashion the judicial orders, for judges are ordinarily not skilled in dealing with emotions but trained essentially in application of legal principles.”

Background: A Fractured Family and POCSO Allegations

The case involved a couple who married in 2015 and moved to the USA, where their daughter was born in 2016. In 2019, the mother returned to India with the child, alleging physical abuse against herself and sexual abuse against the child by the father. This led to multiple legal battles, including a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and a criminal case under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

While the High Court had initially directed the appointment of a single independent expert to evaluate the child for visitation purposes, it later modified this to a "panel of experts" based on the father's application. The mother challenged this, arguing that subjecting the child to multiple experts would lead to re-traumatisation.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court relied on precedents like Gaurav Nagpal vs. Sumedha Nagpal ( "(2009) 1 SCC 42": 2008 CaseBase(SC) 201) and Yashita Sahu vs. State of Rajasthan and Others ( "(2020) 3 SCC 67": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 1030) to affirm that the welfare of the child is the determining factor. It also referred to Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka v. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka ( "(1982) 2 SCC 544": 1982 CaseBase(SC) 112) regarding "Parental Alienation Syndrome" (PAS), but cautioned against using the label without specific evidence of alienating behavior, as noted in Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh Vs. Sugandhi Aggarwal ( "(2024) SCC online 847": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 94). The Court concluded that the High Court failed to justify why a panel was necessary or how it would avoid harming the child, especially given the protections in Section 33(5) of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Case Details:
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026 (@ SLP (Civil) Nos. 18701-18702 of 2024)
NeutralCitation: 2026 INSC 638
Case Title: Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora

Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Sheetal Vasant Thakur (Appellant-in-person)
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Chirag Arora (Respondent-in-person)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 572