In a significant ruling on child welfare and judicial sensitivity, the Supreme Court has held that courts must be extremely cautious before directing repeated psychological evaluations of a child, particularly when allegations of sexual abuse are part of ongoing legal proceedings.
The Court modified two Bombay High Court orders that had paved the way for a panel of experts to assess a minor girl in connection with a custody and visitation dispute between her separated parents.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose between the child's mother, Sheetal Vasant Thakur, and father, Chirag Arora. The parties have been involved in multiple legal proceedings relating to custody, visitation rights, matrimonial disputes, and criminal allegations.
The mother alleged that the child had been subjected to sexual abuse by her father during the family's stay in the United States. Criminal proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act are pending separately.
Meanwhile, the father sought restoration of contact with the child and requested the appointment of an independent child psychology expert to evaluate the child's situation and facilitate reconnection.
While the Family Court rejected that request, the Bombay High Court later directed the appointment of an independent expert. The High Court subsequently modified its order and permitted evaluation by a panel of experts, eventually constituting a four-member panel.
The mother challenged those directions before the Supreme Court.
Court's Observations
The Supreme Court emphasized that the dispute was not merely about parental rights but about protecting the emotional and psychological well-being of a child.
Quoting Nelson Mandela at the beginning of the judgment, the Court observed that society's values are reflected in how it treats its children.
The bench noted that a child involved in legal proceedings should not become the subject of repeated scrutiny merely because adults are engaged in litigation.
“The welfare, dignity and psychological well-being of the child constitute the paramount consideration,”
the Court observed.
The Court explained that the POCSO Act is designed not only to punish offences but also to protect children from procedures that may cause further emotional harm. It referred to the principle of minimum intrusion and warned against processes that could result in re-traumatisation or secondary victimisation.
According to the Court, there is an important difference between therapeutic treatment meant to help a child recover and repeated evaluations carried out as part of an adversarial legal battle.
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had not adequately explained why a single independent expert was insufficient or why a panel of four experts was necessary.
The bench also noted that several names included in the panel had been suggested by the father. While parties may propose experts, the Court stressed that neutrality and independence must remain central to any evaluation process involving a child.
The judgment further pointed out that one expert was based in the United States and another outside the local jurisdiction, creating a complicated and potentially burdensome process for the child.
“The primary consideration ought to have been the likely impact such modification may have upon the child herself,”
the Court said.
Decision
Allowing the appeal in part, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's directions for evaluation of the child by a panel of experts could not continue in their existing form.
Instead, the Court directed that a psychologist appointed by the Family Court should first assess the psychological condition of both parents. The psychologist may then interact with the child's treating psychologist and submit a report regarding the child's present condition.
The Family Court will thereafter decide whether any further psychological assessment of the child is necessary, keeping the child's welfare, emotional security and best interests at the forefront of the decision-making process.
With these modifications, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned approach adopted by the High Court and issued fresh directions for future proceedings.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 18701-18702 of 2024
Judge: Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Decision Date: 2026
-300x169.webp)
