Supreme Court Lays Down Principles For Psychological Evaluation Of Children In Custody Disputes

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh made the observations in a case involving a custody dispute where the child is also an alleged victim of sexual abuse. The Court clarified that its observations are not intended to be exhaustive or inflexible guidelines to be applied mechanically in every case. Instead, they are intended to assist courts dealing with similar disputes involving the psychological welfare of children.

The broad principles in the judgment are –

1. The welfare, emotional security, dignity and psychological well-being of the child must remain the paramount consideration in all proceedings, particularly where the child is an alleged POCSO victim.
2. Psychological or psychiatric evaluation of a child should not be ordered routinely merely because custody, visitation or parental access issues arise.
3. Before directing any evaluation, courts must record specific reasons showing:
   • why the evaluation is necessary,
   • what purpose it serves,
   • how it is relevant, and
   • why less intrusive alternatives are insufficient.
4. Courts must follow the principles of minimum intrusion and minimum exposure while directing psychological interaction with a child.
5. Repeated, overlapping or multi-layered psychological evaluations should ordinarily be avoided unless compelling circumstances exist and reasons are recorded in writing.
6. Where evaluation is necessary, it should ordinarily be conducted by a single independent, court-appointed child psychologist, psychiatrist or similarly qualified expert with expertise in child psychology and child trauma.
7. Appointment of a panel of experts should be an exception and only where the facts of the case make it indispensable.
8. The expert must be demonstrably independent and neutral and ordinarily should not have any prior engagement with either litigating party except on a purely professional basis.
9. The evaluation process must remain child-centric and welfare-oriented and should not become an adversarial, investigative or evidence-gathering exercise designed to advance either party's case.
10. Courts must remain conscious of the risk of re-traumatisation from repeated narration of traumatic events and should regulate:
    • the number of sessions,
    • duration of interaction,
    • number of professionals interacting with the child, and
    • the overall manner of evaluation.
11. Any evaluation must be consistent with the child-friendly framework under Sections 24, 33(5), 36 and 39 of the POCSO Act and the principles of trauma-informed adjudication.
12. The child's identity, disclosures during evaluation, therapy records and evaluative reports must remain strictly confidential.
13. Audio or video recordings, session notes and therapeutic material should not ordinarily be made directly accessible to parties unless a court specifically finds it necessary.
14. Evaluative reports must be confined to the purpose for which the evaluation was ordered and should not contain findings regarding criminal culpability.
15. Where the child is already under the care of a qualified therapist, counsellor or support professional whose competence and neutrality are accepted by the court, disruption of that existing therapeutic environment should ordinarily be avoided.
16. In cases involving virtual or hybrid interaction with experts, courts must ensure safeguards relating to:
    • privacy,
    • emotional safety,
    • absence of external influence, and
    • suitability of the mode considering the child's age and psychological condition.
17. Courts must retain continuing supervisory jurisdiction over the evaluation process and may modify, regulate or discontinue it if it appears likely to adversely affect the child's welfare or psychological well-being.
18. Courts should ensure that psychological assessment of the child is conducted from time to time, if required, as the child grows, in consultation with the concerned child psychologist, to satisfy themselves that the child's best interests and welfare are being protected.
19. Courts should consider obtaining psychological assessment reports of both parents because the child's welfare and psychological development are closely linked to the psychological condition of the parents.
20. Since custody and visitation disputes are often highly emotional, courts should make use of expert assistance regarding the mental health of both the child and the parents as an additional tool for crafting appropriate judicial orders.

Psychological condition of parents relevant

The Court also said that when considering psychological assessment of a child, courts should not focus exclusively on the child. The psychological condition of the parents may be equally relevant in determining what is in the child's best interests, it noted. It observed that assessment of parental mental health may provide important inputs for deciding claims relating to custody, visitation and parental access.

“While it is important to make an assessment as to how the child will respond to either of the parents, it is equally important to ascertain the mental and psychological conditions of the parents themselves to deal with the need of the growing child. Thus, assessment of the psychological condition of both the parents assumes importance before subjecting the child to any further psychological assessment”, the Court held.

Judges obligated to protect child's welfare regardless of parents' claims

Highlighting the role of courts as parens patriae, the Court observed that judges bear an independent obligation to protect the dignity and welfare of children irrespective of the competing positions adopted by parents. Even where one or both parents seek psychological evaluation, courts must independently assess whether the proposed process is genuinely necessary.

“The Court, while exercising jurisdiction in such matters, rather, exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, bears an independent and overriding obligation to protect the dignity and welfare of the child irrespective of the competing positions adopted by the parties. Consequently, even where one or both parents seek evaluative or therapeutic intervention, the Court must independently assess whether the proposed process is genuinely necessary, proportionate and conducive to the welfare of the child”, the Court said.

The Court also observed that the impact of psychological evaluation cannot be assessed merely by looking at the formal nature of the process. Factors such as the number of professionals interacting with the child, the frequency of sessions, the context in which the evaluation is undertaken and the surrounding adversarial environment may together affect the child's emotional experience, the Court said. A process that appears clinically benign in isolation may become psychologically stressful when conducted amid contentious litigation involving allegations of abuse, the Court emphasised.

Psychological evaluation must remain neutral and non-adversarial

The Court further stressed that there must be institutional neutrality in court-directed evaluations. It held that the moment a psychological assessment begins to resemble an adversarial exercise aimed at validating or discrediting allegations against either parent, the process risks losing its welfare-oriented character and may undermine the child's confidence and sense of security. The Court observed that it is desirable for courts to appoint neutral experts, who may interact with professionals suggested by parties if necessary.

Concluding, the Supreme Court reiterated that matters involving the psychological condition and emotional welfare of children require a flexible, child-centric approach.

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