The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday strongly criticised the response of the Gurugram Police in a case involving the alleged sexual assault of a four-year-old child, describing the conduct of officers as reflecting the “heights of insensitivity.”
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed serious concern over the manner in which the investigation was conducted, particularly the treatment of the child and her parents.
Court Flags “Secondary Victimisation”
The bench sharply criticised the police for cross-examining the minor, terming it the “worst form of secondary victimisation” and a grave act of disrespect. The observations came while hearing a petition filed by the child’s parents, who alleged inaction and negligence on the part of the police.
The court also questioned procedural lapses, including why the victim was examined in the presence of the accused and why officials did not visit the child’s residence for recording statements.
“Why can’t the police go to the house of the victim? Are they kings?” the Chief Justice remarked during the proceedings.
Concerns Over Dilution of Charges
The bench raised serious objections to the reduction of charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act—from Section 6, which carries a minimum sentence of 20 years, to Section 10, which prescribes a lesser punishment.
Responding on behalf of the Haryana government, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati stated that the change was based on a report by the Child Welfare Committee. However, the court expressed dissatisfaction with the explanation.
Justice Bagchi observed that the police appeared to lack a proper understanding of the offence, noting that sexual assault is not limited to penal penetration. He described the dilution of charges as “deeply distressing,” particularly given the involvement of senior police officials.
Strong Remarks by the Chief Justice
Chief Justice Kant strongly condemned the investigative approach, stating that the police had effectively “disbelieved the innocence of a four-year-old child.”
“If the state has any respect for the law, those responsible must be immediately transferred,” he said.
The court also criticised the delay in action, noting that no meaningful steps were taken for over two weeks until judicial intervention.
Violation of Victim Privacy
The bench further expressed concern over the disclosure of the child’s identity in official filings, reiterating that protecting the identity of victims is a fundamental legal requirement.
The Chief Justice remarked that the child’s trauma had been “multiplied” due to what he described as an “insensitive, reckless, irresponsible, and unlawful” investigation.
Call for Accountability
The court observed that officials at multiple levels, including senior officers, appeared to have attempted to undermine the case by questioning the credibility of the child and her parents.
The matter has raised serious concerns about adherence to legal safeguards in cases involving minors and is likely to have broader implications for police accountability and investigative standards.
.png)
The opinions posted here do not belong to 🔰www.indiansdaily.com. The author is solely responsible for the opinions.
As per the IT policy of the Central Government, insults against an individual, community, religion or country, defamatory and inflammatory remarks, obscene and vulgar language are punishable offenses. Legal action will be taken for such expressions of opinion.