New Delhi, June 12: In a significant ruling on child welfare and judicial sensitivity, the Supreme Court of India has held that courts dealing with child custody and visitation disputes must exercise extreme caution before ordering repeated psychological evaluations of children, particularly when allegations of sexual abuse are involved.
The judgment came in a case arising from an ongoing custody dispute between estranged parents, where criminal proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act are also pending against the father. The allegations relate to the alleged sexual abuse of the child while the family was residing in the United States. The father has denied the allegations.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh modified earlier orders of the Bombay High Court that had directed the constitution of a panel of experts to psychologically evaluate the child as part of efforts to facilitate reconnection with her father.
The Supreme Court observed that the matter extended beyond a routine custody dispute and raised broader questions about how the justice system should engage with children who are alleged victims of abuse. The bench stressed that the child’s welfare, dignity and psychological well-being must remain at the centre of all judicial proceedings.
According to the court, children involved in such cases should not be treated merely as subjects of investigation or evidence gathering. Instead, judicial processes must be designed in a manner that protects them from further emotional harm.
The bench cautioned that repeated interactions with psychologists and evaluators, particularly when ordered by courts at the request of contesting parties, can sometimes result in what experts describe as “secondary victimisation” or “re-traumatisation.” Such situations arise when a child is repeatedly required to revisit distressing experiences, potentially worsening existing emotional and psychological stress.
The court noted that in the present case, the child was already coping with the trauma associated with family separation and was undergoing therapeutic treatment. In these circumstances, subjecting her to examinations by multiple evaluators required careful scrutiny.
At the same time, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that courts should never seek expert psychological assistance in cases where allegations under the POCSO Act are pending. The bench acknowledged that expert intervention may be necessary in certain circumstances to assist courts in understanding family dynamics and safeguarding the child’s welfare.
However, it held that any such intervention must satisfy strict standards of necessity, proportionality, neutrality and minimum intrusion. The court emphasized that the psychological safety of the child should outweigh procedural convenience or competing claims of the parties involved.
Modifying the High Court’s directions, the apex court ordered a more cautious approach. Instead of immediately subjecting the child to evaluation by a panel of experts, it directed the Family Court to first appoint a psychologist to assess the mental and psychological condition of both parents, with particular focus on the mother, who currently has custody of the child.
The appointed psychologist has also been directed to consult with the child’s treating psychologist and submit a report to the Family Court. Based on that report, the Family Court will determine whether any direct psychological assessment of the child is necessary.
If such an assessment is eventually considered essential, the Supreme Court ruled that it should be conducted by a single independent child psychologist rather than a multi-member panel. The evaluation should be carried out in consultation with the child’s existing therapist and involve the minimum possible interaction necessary for the purpose.
The court also directed the Family Court to remain alert to concerns such as parental alienation and the possibility of false memory creation, while ensuring that neither parent influences the child in a manner that could adversely affect her relationship with the other parent.
Legal observers say the ruling reinforces a growing emphasis on child-centric justice and trauma-informed judicial procedures. By placing psychological well-being at the forefront of custody proceedings, the Supreme Court has sought to ensure that children involved in family disputes are protected not only from abuse but also from processes that may inadvertently deepen emotional harm.
The matter has now been remitted to the Family Court for fresh consideration in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the apex court, which reiterated that the welfare, emotional security, dignity and psychological well-being of the child must remain the paramount consideration in all such proceedings.
