Supreme Court Sets Safeguards Against POCSO Misuse in Matrimonial Disputes

The Supreme Court has laid down safeguards against the misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in matrimonial disputes, ruling that there shall be no immediate arrest where a parent or a family member living under the same roof is accused of an offence under the law.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan delivered the verdict, flagging what it described as a rising trend of false sexual-assault complaints involving children in cases filed by estranged couples.

The court said two threshold conditions must be met before the protection applies: an offence under the POCSO Act is alleged against a parent or another family member residing with the child, and a matrimonial dispute of some form exists between the child's parents, whether or not it is before a court, indicating a strained relationship.

Where these conditions are satisfied, the investigating officer should not act in haste or take coercive action in the form of arrest immediately after an FIR is registered, the bench said. It added that while the allegations in the FIR may suggest an offence, the surrounding circumstances — particularly the strained relationship between the parents — may raise doubt over whether the allegations can safely be relied upon.

The court directed that the investigating officer or the Special Juvenile Police Unit engage an expert in child and adolescent psychiatry or clinical psychology, in consultation with the District Child Protection Unit or, where none is available, the District Legal Services Authority. The evaluation must be conducted independently, free from the influence of the disgruntled parent and the investigating authorities, it said.

In exceptional cases where the material is palpable, the investigating officer may dispense with the expert's services for reasons recorded in writing, the bench added. Once the evaluation report is received, authorities must weigh the expert's opinion along with other material to decide whether there is reason to believe the accused committed the offence before making an arrest.

For complaint cases before a special court, the bench said an order taking cognisance and summoning an accused must reflect application of mind. The special court must also involve a child and adolescent psychiatry or clinical psychology expert, who will evaluate the child victim and submit a report.

The court observed that false accusations are increasing, with gullible parties sometimes misguided by advisors, including in some cases legal professionals pursuing a "win at all cost" approach. It said an enraged parent, engulfed by anger and blinded by ego, may fall prey to such machinations without foreseeing the consequences.

The bench noted that the trauma a child undergoes during the process can damage the parent-child relationship, leaving a lasting scar on both, apart from the hurt, humiliation and public opprobrium faced by an accused parent even after exoneration. It also pointed to the irreparable harm caused by arresting a parent or family member under the same roof.

The ruling came in a matrimonial dispute involving an estranged couple from Bengaluru, where the wife had alleged sexual assault of the child. The CBI probed the case and the allegation proved false. The top court restored custody of the child to the father, taking into account the minor's welfare.