Courts Must Order Psychological Assessment Of Child Only If Necessary; Minimum Intrusion Should Be Norm: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today observed that psychological assessments of children involved in custody, visitation and parental access disputes should be ordered only when necessary and "minimum intrusion" into a child's life should be the norm, particularly where the child is an alleged victim of sexual abuse.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh made the observations while modifying orders of the Bombay High Court that had directed the constitution of a panel of psychologists and experts to evaluate a minor child who is also an alleged victim of sexual abuse by her father.

The Court clarified that it was not dealing with the merits of the sexual abuse allegations. However, while examining the issue of psychological evaluation, it referred to the objectives of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), which proceeds on the fundamental premise that a child who has suffered sexual abuse should not be exposed to processes capable of causing further emotional harm or secondary victimisation.

The Supreme Court stressed that a court, acting as parens patriae for the child, must be especially careful while directing any form of examination of a minor.

“We have also, in that context, examined the provisions of the POCSO Act, which proceeds on the fundamental premise that child who has allegedly suffered sexual abuse must not be exposed to processes capable of causing further emotional harm, immolation, or secondary victimization. Keeping that in mind, we have felt that minimum intrusion to the child's life should be the norm as acting as parens patriae for the child, we have to be more careful when we direct any kind of examination of the child”, the Court observed.

The Court referred to reports prepared by experts from the Department of Psychiatric Social Work and the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS). The reports highlighted issues affecting both children and parents in custody disputes, including parent-child relationships, parental dynamics, parental mental health concerns, malicious acts by parents, adjustment to changes in a child's life, school-related issues and child mental health concerns.

The Court observed that questions concerning child custody, visitation rights and parental access cannot be viewed solely from the perspective of the child and must instead be examined holistically, taking into account the conduct and mental condition of the parents as well.

In the case before it, the Supreme Court modified orders of the Bombay High Court that had directed the constitution of a panel of psychologists and experts to evaluate the child.

Instead, the Court directed the Family Court to first appoint a psychologist to assess the mental and psychological condition of both parents, particularly the mother, in whose custody the child presently resides. The court-appointed psychologist will then interact with the psychologist currently treating the child and submit a report to the Family Court.

The Supreme Court directed that the Family Court should decide, after considering that report, whether any direct psychological assessment of the child is necessary. If such assessment is found unnecessary, it should not be conducted.

If it is considered necessary, it must be undertaken by an independent child psychologist in consultation with the child's treating psychologist and with the minimum interaction necessary so as not to adversely affect the child's mental condition.

The Court also directed the Family Court to periodically review the need for any psychological assessment, noting that a growing child's psychological needs may evolve over time. The parties were granted liberty to seek modification of custody and visitation arrangements as circumstances change.

Further, the Court directed the parties to keep the Family Court informed about the status of the POCSO proceedings pending against the father, observing that those proceedings could have a significant bearing on decisions relating to custody and visitation rights.

The matter has been remitted to the Family Court for fresh consideration in light of the Supreme Court's observations and directions.

The Court also observed that courts must remain alert to concerns regarding parental alienation syndrome and false memory creation. While noting that the child is presently in the safe custody of her mother, the Court said the child should not be exposed to influences that may foster such syndromes against the father. The Court stated that information on this aspect may be obtained through reports from the psychologist treating the child without necessarily requiring direct interaction with the child on the issue.

The Court also clarified that its observations in the present judgment should not be treated as exhaustive or inflexible guidelines applicable in every case. It emphasised that disputes involving the psychological condition, emotional responses and welfare needs of children do not admit rigid formulas or uniform standards. The Court observed that emotional responses vary from child to child and may also change over time in the case of the same child.

Headnote

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Custody and Child Psychological Evaluation – Child-Centric Jurisprudence - Sections 24, 33(5), 36, and 39 – Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 12 – Psychological Evaluation of a Child Victim Intersecting with Custody/Visitation Disputes - The High Court modified its initial order for a single independent expert by constituting a four-member multi layered panel of experts to evaluate a 10-year-old child victim for facilitating reconnection with the father, who is facing active criminal prosecution under the POCSO Act – Held that the High Court's approach suffered from a fundamental flaw as it failed to examine the detrimental impact that a multi-layered evaluative process conducted by numerous professionals could have on the psychological well-being of the child - Legal procedures involving child victims must remain child-sensitive, trauma-informed, and protective of their emotional security - The statutory framework of the POCSO Act, particularly the principle of minimum exposure under Section 33(5), consciously recognizes that repeated legal or forensic engagement carries a severe risk of "secondary victimisation" and "re-traumatisation" - While courts exercising parens patriae jurisdiction are not altogether precluded from seeking expert psychological assistance when POCSO allegations are pending, any such process must strictly adhere to the requirements of demonstrable necessity, institutional neutrality, proportionality, and minimum intrusion – The Supreme Court further emphasized that the emotional growth and welfare of a child are deeply intertwined with the parental subsystem - courts should focus on calling for psychological assessment reports of the parents themselves before subjecting the child to further forensic or clinical scrutiny - The impugned orders of the High Court were modified, and the matter was remitted to the Family Court to evaluate the parent's mental health first and coordinate with the child's existing therapeutic counsellor. [Paras 31, 41- 82, 85-93]

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and False Memory Creation - Invocation of PAS in Bitter Custody Disputes – Duty of Caution - The Respondent-father raised apprehensions of the child being tutored, developing "parental alienation syndrome," and falling victim to "false memory creation – Held that Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is a highly convoluted and intricate phenomenon that cannot be attributed or imputed to an individual parent routinely or routinely used as a straitjacket formula - Corroborating contemporary mental health developments, the Court observed that PAS is not a diagnosable clinical syndrome but rather a process of manipulation through "alienating behaviours." – held that the Courts must look at specific, identified behaviours found to have taken place within the individual family and must not prematurely label any parent as a promoter of such behaviour without proper, clear material evidence. [Relied on Sakshi v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 518; Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42; Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh, (2017) 3 SCC 231; Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh v. Sugandhi Aggarwal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 847; Paras 84-98]

Case no. – SLP(C) No. 18701-18702/2024

Case Title – Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 618

Click here to read the judgment