The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Sheetal Vasant v. Chirag Arora, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, has laid down a guiding principle for the courts dealing with requests for psychiatric or psychological evaluations of children in custody, visitation and parental access disputes.
The present case arose from a dispute involving the custody of a child, also an alleged victim of sexual abuse. In the process of deciding the matter, the court provided clarifications with respect to the mechanical and rigid usage of the rules and held that every case should have its own unique approach for the application of rules, otherwise it will lead to defeating the purpose of the same. The court took note that psychological evaluations should not become a routine feature of custody battles. The mere contest of custody or visitation rights between parents does not automatically justify subjecting a child to a psychological assessment. The court ruled that before any evaluation, courts must record specific reasons showing why the evaluation is necessary, what purpose it serves, how it is relevant, and why less intrusive alternatives are insufficient. Courts must follow the principles of minimum intrusion and minimum exposure while directing psychological interaction with a child. Recurring, overlapping and multi- layered evaluations conducted on the psychology of the child should be avoided unless there are compelling reasons in that regard, and the same should be recorded in writing. The Apex court, highlighting the Parens Patriae principle, emphasised that judges bear an obligation towards protecting the dignity and welfare of the children, irrespective of the adversarial position for securing the custody of the child that is adopted by the parents.
Taking special emphasis on the principles of minimum intrusion and minimum exposure, the court cautioned against repeated psychiatric evaluations unless there are compelling measures to justify such evaluations.
The Court further held that where evaluation is necessary, it should ordinarily be conducted by a single independent and neutral expert possessing expertise in child psychology and trauma, while the appointment of multiple experts should remain an exception. Furthermore, the court directed that disclosures made during evaluations, therapy records and evaluative reports must remain confidential, and the same should be limited to the purpose for which they were ordered without expressing any opinion regarding criminal culpability. Any evaluation must be consistent with the child-friendly framework under Sections 24, 33(5), 36 and 39 of the POCSO Act and the principles of trauma-informed adjudication.