POCSO Act Investigations Involving Parents In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Aided By Expert Psychological Evaluation: Supreme Court

"The investigating officer or the Special Juvenile Police Unit shall engage the services of an expert in child and adolescent psychiatry/clinical psychology in consultation with the District Child Protection Unit or the District Legal Services Authority where DCPU is not available, of the concerned district, for the purpose of aiding the investigation." Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling dated 24 September 2026, has established a mandatory framework requiring the involvement of child psychology and psychiatry experts in investigations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed that courts must adopt a cautious approach when POCSO allegations arise in the context of matrimonial litigation, as there is an increasing trend of misusing these provisions to settle scores or gain leverage in custody battles.

Court Acknowledges Growing Misuse of POCSO Act

The Court expressed deep concern over the "chronic syndrome" of using the POCSO Act as a weapon to wreak vengeance in matrimonial disputes. It noted that when allegations of sexual assault against a child are levelled by one parent against another to gain a strategic legal advantage, the process can cause irreparable harm to the accused and, more importantly, leave an "indelible scar" on the child. The bench emphasized that the police must be circumspect when handling such cases to ensure that innocent parents are not unnecessarily traumatized or falsely implicated.

Threshold Conditions for New Safeguards

The Court laid down two specific threshold conditions for the application of these new investigative safeguards. First, an offence under the POCSO Act must be alleged to have been committed by a parent or a family member living under the same roof. Second, there must be an existing matrimonial dispute of some form between the parents, indicating a potentially strained relationship. The Court mandated that investigating officers must verify these conditions at the time of receiving the complaint to prevent the abuse of the legal process.

Mandatory Engagement of Experts

To address the "informational deficit" and ensure that the investigation is not swayed by parental conflict, the Court directed that investigating officers or the Special Juvenile Police Unit must engage the services of an expert in child and adolescent psychiatry or clinical psychology. This expert, who should be drawn from the register maintained by the District Child Protection Unit under Rule 5(1) of the POCSO Rules, 2020, will assist in the evaluation of the child. The Court underscored that this process must be conducted in an independent manner, free from the influence of either the complainant or the accused parent.

Expert Reports as Investigative Tools

The bench clarified that while the expert’s report is intended to aid the investigation, it is not meant to bind the investigating officer or serve as the sole basis for a chargesheet or closure report. The discretion to arrest remains firmly with the investigating officer, who must satisfy the requirements of "reason to believe" as prescribed under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Court reiterated that an arrest cannot be made in a routine or mechanical manner and must be supported by cogent material beyond a mere allegation.

"The investigating officer shall, in exceptional cases, where the material is palpable, for reasons to be recorded in writing dispense with the engagement of the services of an expert in child and adolescent psychiatry/psychology."

Addressing Private Complaints Under Section 33

The Court also addressed the procedure regarding private complaints filed directly before the Special Court under Section 33 of the POCSO Act. It held that the Special Court must exercise its jurisdiction with extreme caution and apply its judicial mind before issuing process. The Court is not obligated to take cognizance merely because a complaint has been filed; it must find sufficient grounds to believe that an offence has been committed. The bench suggested that if necessary, the Special Court may order a police investigation before deciding on the issuance of summons, thereby ensuring that the judicial process is not used for vexatious litigation.

Quashing of Frivolous Proceedings

In the specific facts of the present case, the Court observed that the FIR registered against the father was clearly aimed at laying a foundation to secure custody of the child in the midst of ongoing litigation. After a detailed report by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which found no signs of anxiety or trauma in the child consistent with the allegations, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR and the subsequent criminal proceedings. The Court further directed that the legal custody of the child should remain with the father, ordering a structured process of re-integration to be overseen by a committee of experts, including the CBI officers and professionals from NIMHANS who assisted in the investigation.

Judicial Accountability for Child Welfare

The judgment concludes by directing the Registrar Generals of all High Courts to circulate these guidelines to every criminal court, and the Chief Secretaries to transmit them to all police stations. The Court emphasized that judges dealing with remand and bail must assess whether the investigating officer has complied with these safeguards. By institutionalizing the role of experts in the investigative process, the Court has aimed to balance the "stringency" of the POCSO Act with the necessity of protecting the integrity of the family bond against malicious litigation.

Date of Decision: 24 September 2026