The Supreme Court has outlined an important framework for courts handling requests for psychological or psychiatric assessments of children caught in custody, visitation and parental access disputes, stressing that such interventions must remain exceptional rather than routine.
The ruling came from a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh while hearing a custody matter involving a child who is also an alleged victim of sexual abuse. The Court made it clear that the principles set out in the judgment are intended to guide courts and are not rigid rules to be mechanically applied in every case.
At the heart of the judgment is a simple but powerful proposition: the child’s welfare, emotional security, dignity and psychological well-being must outweigh every other consideration. Courts, the Bench said, should be particularly cautious when dealing with children who may already be carrying the burden of trauma.
The Court cautioned against treating psychological evaluations as a default tool in custody disputes. Before directing such an assessment, judges must clearly record why it is necessary, what purpose it serves, how it will assist the case, and why less intrusive options are inadequate.
Emphasising a “minimum intrusion” approach, the Bench warned against repeated or overlapping assessments that may force a child to repeatedly revisit painful experiences. Multiple evaluations, it observed, should remain a rarity and be permitted only when compelling circumstances justify them.
Where an assessment is considered unavoidable, the Court said it should generally be conducted by a single independent expert with recognised expertise in child psychology, psychiatry or child trauma. The appointment of multiple experts or panels should be reserved for exceptional situations. The expert must be neutral, independent and ordinarily free from prior involvement with either side in the dispute.
The judgment further underlined that the evaluation process should remain focused on the child’s welfare rather than becoming a battleground for competing parental claims. Psychological assessments, the Court said, must not be converted into investigative exercises designed to strengthen one party’s litigation strategy.
Recognising the dangers of re-traumatisation, the Bench directed courts to carefully regulate the number of sessions, the duration of interactions, the professionals involved and the overall structure of the assessment process. Any interaction with the child must align with the child-sensitive protections embedded in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and reflect trauma-informed judicial practices.
The Court also placed strong emphasis on confidentiality. A child’s disclosures, therapy records, evaluation reports and personal information must remain protected. Audio or video recordings, counselling notes and therapeutic material should ordinarily remain inaccessible to litigating parties unless a court specifically determines that disclosure is necessary.
Experts conducting assessments were instructed to limit their reports strictly to the purpose for which they were appointed. The Court clarified that such reports should not venture into questions of criminal guilt or innocence.
Another significant aspect of the ruling concerns children already undergoing therapy. The Bench observed that courts should avoid disrupting an established therapeutic relationship where a qualified and neutral counsellor or therapist is already assisting the child.
For assessments conducted through virtual or hybrid modes, courts must ensure adequate safeguards concerning privacy, emotional comfort, freedom from external influence and the suitability of the format considering the child’s age and psychological condition.
The Supreme Court further held that judges must retain ongoing supervision over the evaluation process. If an assessment appears likely to harm the child’s welfare or emotional health, courts should have the authority to modify, regulate or halt it altogether.
Acknowledging that a child’s needs evolve over time, the Court also observed that periodic psychological assessments may be considered where necessary as the child grows, enabling courts to continuously evaluate whether the child’s best interests remain protected.
The judgment marks a significant effort to balance judicial fact-finding with the emotional and psychological rights of children, ensuring that legal proceedings do not become another source of harm for those already navigating vulnerable circumstances.
