Repeated Psychological Evaluation Of Child Victim By Multiple Experts Risks Re-Traumatisation; Courts Must Prioritize Minimum Intrusion: Supreme Court

"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." Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment dated June 11, 2026, held that directing repeated psychological evaluations of a child victim by multiple experts, especially in the context of POCSO allegations, can lead to secondary victimisation.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that such judicially-ordained processes must strictly adhere to the principles of minimum intrusion and psychological safety. The Court emphasized that while courts may seek expert assistance, they must guard against prioritizing the adversarial claims of bickering parents over the emotional well-being of the child.

The case arose from a matrimonial dispute where the mother (Appellant) alleged that the father (Respondent) had sexually abused their minor daughter, leading to proceedings under the POCSO Act. The Bombay High Court modified an earlier order to substitute a single independent expert with a "panel of experts," including professionals suggested by the father, to evaluate the child for reconnection purposes. The mother challenged this direction, contending that subjecting the child to a four-member panel would aggravate her trauma and compromise her emotional recovery.

The primary legal question before the Court was whether the High Court's direction for a panel of experts satisfied the "best interest of the child" principle and the statutory framework of the POCSO Act. The Court was also called upon to determine the permissible limits of judicially-directed psychological evaluation of a child victim where custody disputes intersect with allegations of sexual abuse.

Child Welfare Is The Paramount Consideration In Custody Disputes

The Supreme Court reiterated that in all matters concerning minors, the welfare and best interest of the child constitute the overarching and determining factor. The bench noted that all other factors, including the rights and claims of litigating parents, remain subservient to this paramount consideration. This principle acquires even greater significance when the child is an alleged victim under the POCSO Act, as the judicial process itself carries the potential of exposing the child to further trauma.

The Court observed that the doctrine of "best interest of the child" cannot be confined to determining safe custody arrangements alone but must address the procedural architecture through which courts engage with the child. "Judicial procedures themselves must, therefore, conform to standards of sensitivity, minimum intrusion and psychological safety of the child," the bench remarked.

POCSO Act Mandates Child-Sensitive Procedural Safeguards

Examining the architecture of the POCSO Act, the Court highlighted that the statute represents a conscious legislative departure from conventional adversarial procedures. The bench referred to Sections 24, 33(5), 36, and 39 of the Act, which collectively mandate child-friendly environments and protection from unnecessary exposure. The Court noted that the legislative emphasis is not merely on the collection of evidence but on the preservation of the child's emotional security throughout the legal process.

The Court pointed out that Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act, which ensures a child is not called repeatedly to testify, reflects a broader recognition that repeated engagement in legal processes can cause re-traumatisation. "The principle of minimum exposure and minimum re-traumatisation must provide doctrinal guidance even in custody proceedings involving child victims," the Court stated.

Distinction Between Therapeutic Engagement and Adversarial Evaluation

The bench drew a vital distinction between therapeutic engagement intended to support healing and repeated evaluation undertaken as part of adversarial processes to vindicate the claims of rival parties. While the former aids rehabilitation, the latter risks converting the child into an object of continuous forensic scrutiny. The Court cautioned that the moment an evaluation begins to assume the character of an adversarial exercise intended to debunk allegations, it loses its therapeutic legitimacy.

The Court expressed concern that the High Court failed to examine the impact that a multi-layered evaluative process by numerous evaluators would have on the child. The bench noted that the substitution of a singular "expert" with a "panel of experts" was not a mere semantic change but a substantive modification that increased the child's psychological exposure.

Guidelines For Judicially-Directed Psychological Evaluation

To provide clarity for future cases, the Supreme Court issued a set of comprehensive guidelines for courts dealing with the psychological evaluation of minor children. The Court held that such evaluations should not be directed as a matter of routine merely because a custody or visitation dispute arises between parents. Before directing an evaluation, the court must record specific reasons demonstrating its necessity and explain why less intrusive alternatives would not suffice.

The bench emphasized that courts must adopt the principle of minimum intrusion and avoid repeated or overlapping evaluations unless compelling circumstances exist. Ordinarily, the evaluation should be conducted by one independent, court-appointed professional rather than a panel. Furthermore, the expert must remain demonstrably independent and should not have any prior engagement with either litigating party.

Evaluation Of Parents Necessary Before Subjecting Child To Scrutiny

In an important observation, the Court noted that the psychological growth of a child is closely intertwined with the condition of the parents. The bench suggested that it is often desirable for courts to call for psychological assessment reports of both parents before subjecting the child to any further evaluation. This approach provides pertinent material inputs for the court while minimizing the direct burden on the child.

The Court also highlighted that the identity of the child and all therapeutic records generated during evaluation must remain strictly confidential. Audio or video recordings and session notes should not be made directly accessible to the parties except upon a specific judicial determination of necessity. The evaluative reports must remain confined to the purpose for which they were directed and should not contain findings on criminal culpability.

Parens Patriae Jurisdiction Imposes Onerous Responsibility On Courts

The Court reminded the judiciary that while exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, it bears an independent obligation to protect the dignity and welfare of the child irrespective of the positions adopted by the parents. In the present case, the Court found that the High Court's order for a four-member panel, including experts from the USA and outside the local jurisdiction, would be emotionally burdensome for the child.

The bench modified the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the Family Court with specific directions. The Family Court was directed to first appoint a psychologist to interact with both parents and the child's current therapist. Only after considering their report should the court decide on the desirability of a direct psychological assessment of the child, ensuring it is done with "utmost care and with the minimum interactions possible."

The Supreme Court concluded that judicial processes must remain trauma-informed and child-centric so that procedures adopted in aid of welfare do not themselves become instruments of distress. The bench partly allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's directions for the four-member panel and emphasizing that the best interest of the child must remain the controlling consideration at every stage.

Date of Decision: June 11, 2026