In an important judgment underscoring the need for child-sensitive judicial processes, the Supreme Court has held that courts must remain vigilant against orders that may expose a child to unnecessary psychological stress, particularly where allegations of sexual abuse are pending under the POCSO Act. Deciding Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora (2026 INSC 638), the Court observed that repeated psychological evaluations of a child may carry the risk of re-traumatisation and secondary victimisation, and therefore must be ordered only when demonstrably necessary and in the child’s best interests.
The ruling goes beyond the immediate custody dispute between estranged parents and lays down broader principles governing judicial engagement with child victims. Emphasising a welfare-oriented and trauma-informed approach, the Court reiterated that the rights of litigating parents are subordinate to the child’s welfare, dignity, emotional stability, and psychological safety. The judgment also highlights the importance of institutional neutrality in expert evaluations and cautions against turning children into subjects of continuous forensic scrutiny in adversarial proceedings.
The case arose out of a matrimonial dispute between Sheetal Vasant Thakur and Chirag Arora. The parties were married in February 2015 and subsequently moved to the United States. A daughter was born to them in June 2016 in New Jersey.
According to the mother, the marital relationship deteriorated during their stay in the United States. She alleged that she was subjected to domestic violence and that the child had been sexually abused by the father when she was approximately two years old. Following an alleged incident of domestic assault in December 2019, the mother returned to India with the child.
Thereafter, a series of legal proceedings commenced in India and abroad concerning custody, visitation rights, divorce, domestic violence allegations, and criminal complaints. The mother lodged complaints leading to the registration of FIRs under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) and the POCSO Act against the father. Simultaneously, the father sought custody, visitation rights, and opportunities to reconnect with the child.
The dispute eventually reached the Family Court, the Bombay High Court, and finally the Supreme Court.
Proceedings Before the Family Court
The father sought the appointment of an independent psychiatric expert specialising in child psychology. According to him, such an evaluation was necessary to assess the child’s circumstances and facilitate the restoration of the father-daughter relationship.
The mother opposed the request on several grounds:
- Serious POCSO allegations were pending against the father.
- The child was already undergoing therapy with a psychologist.
- Additional evaluations could adversely affect the child’s mental health.
- Child-friendly protections under the POCSO Act required minimising the exposure of the child to stressful processes.
The Family Court rejected the father’s application. It was observed that serious allegations existed against the father, the child was already receiving therapeutic support, and further psychiatric evaluation could be detrimental to her welfare.
High Court’s Intervention
The father challenged the Family Court’s decision before the Bombay High Court. The High Court partly allowed the petition and held that the existence of a psychologist’s report obtained by the mother could not prevent the court from appointing an independent expert. It therefore directed the appointment of an independent expert specialising in child psychology.
Subsequently, the father approached the High Court again, contending that suitable experts were unavailable locally. He proposed a list of experts, including specialists dealing with concepts such as parental alienation syndrome and false memory creation.
Accepting the request, the High Court modified its earlier order and substituted the expression “independent expert” with “panel of experts.” Eventually, a four-member panel comprising experts from different locations, including one based abroad, was constituted to evaluate the child.
The mother challenged these directions before the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court identified several crucial questions:
-
Whether the High Court was justified in replacing the concept of a single independent expert with a panel of experts.
-
Whether repeated psychological evaluations were compatible with the child’s welfare and best interests.
-
Whether such evaluations could lead to re-traumatisation and secondary victimisation.
-
Whether the High Court’s directions were consistent with the protective framework of the POCSO Act.
-
Whether the process maintained institutional neutrality when several experts had been proposed by the father himself.
The Court observed that these questions transcended ordinary custody disputes and involved broader concerns relating to child protection and trauma-sensitive justice.
Child Welfare as the Paramount Consideration
The judgment reiterates a settled principle of Indian law: in all custody and visitation disputes, the welfare of the child overrides the competing claims of parents.
The Court relied upon earlier decisions, including Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, and Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu. These cases consistently hold that a court acts as parens patriae, the ultimate guardian of the child’s interests.
The Supreme Court emphasised that welfare is not confined to physical comfort or material advantages. It encompasses:
- Emotional stability;
- Psychological security;
- Mental health;
- Moral and ethical development;
- Educational well-being; and
- Overall dignity of the child.
Any judicial process that threatens these interests must be carefully scrutinised.
POCSO Act and Child-Friendly Justice
A major contribution of the judgment lies in its detailed examination of the child-protective philosophy underlying the POCSO Act.
The Court observed that the Act is not merely a penal statute creating offences against children. It also establishes a child-sensitive procedural framework designed to protect children from further trauma during legal proceedings.
The Court referred to several provisions:
Section 24
This provision requires recording of a child’s statement in a child-friendly manner without causing fear, intimidation, or distress.
Section 33(5)
The provision seeks to ensure that child victims are not repeatedly called to testify.
Section 36
It protects children from direct exposure to accused persons during proceedings.
Section 39
The section provides for support persons, interpreters, and experts to safeguard the child’s welfare.
According to the Supreme Court, these provisions collectively embody the principle of “minimum exposure” and “minimum re-traumatisation.” Even though the present proceedings arose from custody litigation rather than a criminal trial, the underlying philosophy of the POCSO Act could not be ignored.
Re-Traumatisation and Secondary Victimisation
A central theme of the judgment is the concept of re-traumatisation.
The Court distinguished between:
-
Therapeutic interventions intended to support a child’s recovery; and
-
Evaluative exercises conducted as part of adversarial litigation.
While therapeutic engagement can assist healing, repeated evaluations undertaken to advance the litigation strategy of either parent may inflict additional psychological harm.
The Court noted that the child had already interacted with multiple agencies, investigators, counsellors, psychologists, and judicial authorities. Subjecting her to further examinations by several experts risked transforming her into an object of continuous forensic scrutiny.
The Court warned that judicial procedures themselves can become sources of trauma if not carefully designed.
Criticism of the High Court’s Approach
The Supreme Court found several shortcomings in the High Court’s orders.
Lack of Reasons
The High Court failed to explain:
- Why one independent expert was insufficient;
- Why were four experts necessary;
- Why repeated interactions were required; and
- How would the process conform to the principle of minimum intrusion?
Ignoring Psychological Consequences
The High Court focused largely on the rights of the parents without adequately considering the impact on the child.
Risk of Adversarial Evaluation
The Court expressed concern that the proposed process could become an attempt to test allegations of abuse through theories such as parental alienation syndrome or false memory creation rather than focusing on the child’s welfare.
Institutional Neutrality
The Court also noted that many of the proposed experts had been suggested by the father. While parties may assist the court by recommending names, the ultimate process must remain independent and welfare-oriented.
The appearance of neutrality is as important as neutrality itself when dealing with a child victim.
Observations on Parental Alienation Syndrome
An interesting aspect of the judgment is its discussion of parental alienation syndrome (PAS). The father had argued that the mother was influencing the child and creating hostility against him. The Court referred to earlier decisions such as Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh and Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh v. Sugandhi Aggarwal.
The Court acknowledged that parental alienation can exist in certain situations. However, it cautioned against casually applying the label.
Rather than focusing on a broad diagnosis, courts should identify specific instances of alienating behaviour supported by evidence. Allegations of parental alienation cannot become a convenient tool for discrediting the custodial parent without proper proof.
Importance of Psychological Assessment of Parents
One of the most innovative features of the judgment is the Court’s shift in focus. Instead of concentrating solely on evaluating the child, the Court emphasised the importance of assessing the psychological condition of both parents.
The Court observed that parental behaviour significantly affects a child’s mental health. Therefore, before exposing a child to further assessments, it is necessary to understand:
- The emotional condition of the parents;
- Their ability to care for the child;
- Their attitudes toward each other, and
- Their influence on the child’s psychological development.
This approach recognises that custody disputes are often rooted in parental conflict and that understanding the parents may provide more useful insights than repeatedly examining the child.
Directions Issued by the Supreme Court
Having found flaws in the High Court’s approach, the Supreme Court modified the impugned orders.
The Court directed:
-
The Family Court shall appoint a psychologist to assess the psychological condition of both parents.
-
The psychologist shall interact with the child psychologist already treating the child.
-
Based on these interactions, the psychologist shall submit a report to the Family Court.
-
The Family Court shall then determine whether any further psychological assessment of the child is genuinely necessary.
The Court thus rejected the idea of immediately subjecting the child to evaluation by a multi-member expert panel. Instead, it adopted a staged and cautious approach focused on minimising intrusion into the child’s life.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora represents a significant advancement in child-centric jurisprudence. The judgment recognises that legal processes can themselves become sources of trauma and therefore must be structured with sensitivity and restraint.
By setting aside the High Court’s direction for evaluation by a four-member panel and emphasising the principles of psychological safety, minimum intrusion, and welfare-oriented adjudication, the Court reaffirmed that the best interests of the child are paramount. Even in intensely contested custody battles, the child cannot be reduced to a subject of adversarial investigation.
The decision serves as a reminder that the justice system’s responsibility extends beyond resolving disputes between parents. Its foremost obligation is to protect the dignity, emotional security, and psychological well-being of the child whose future is at stake.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams