The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday strongly criticised the Gurugram Police for what it described as an “insensitive” and “reckless” investigation into the sexual assault of a four-year-old child in Gurugram, Haryana. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the police’s handling of the case amounted to “secondary victimisation” of the child.
Hearing a petition filed by the girl’s parents alleging inaction and procedural lapses, the court questioned why officers cross-examined the minor, delayed action for over two weeks, and allegedly downgraded charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
The apex court has now ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), reportedly led by women IPS officers, to take over the probe and issued notices to senior police officials and other authorities over the handling of the case.
Court Slams ‘Insensitive’ Handling Of Child’s Testimony
During the hearing, the bench expressed deep concern about the way the investigation was conducted, particularly how the young survivor was questioned. Chief Justice Kant criticised the police for summoning and cross-examining the four-year-old child rather than recording her statement in a safe and sensitive environment. “Why can’t the police go to the house of the victim? Are they kings?” the Chief Justice asked during the proceedings, highlighting the lack of empathy shown by investigators.
Justice Bagchi echoed the concern, calling the approach the “worst form of secondary victimisation” and a serious violation of the dignity owed to a child survivor. The bench further noted that the conduct of officers indicated a troubling lack of awareness about child protection laws and procedures designed to minimise trauma during investigations.
The court also questioned the apparent dilution of charges under the POCSO Act. According to the bench, the offence was initially registered under Section 6, which deals with aggravated penetrative sexual assault and carries a minimum sentence of 20 years if proven.
However, investigators reportedly reduced the charge to Section 10, which prescribes a lesser punishment. Justice Bagchi observed that rape is not limited to penile penetration alone and criticised the police’s interpretation of the law, remarking that such an understanding of sexual violence against a child was “distressing”.
The judges expressed concern that senior police officials, including high-ranking officers, were allegedly involved in reducing the seriousness of the charge, raising questions about the fairness and integrity of the investigation.
Women-Led SIT Takes Over Probe
The case reached the apex court after the child’s parents approached it alleging that the police had failed to act promptly and conducted an insensitive investigation that further traumatised their daughter. During the hearing, the bench observed that authorities had allegedly not taken significant steps for nearly 15 days after the incident was reported.
The court questioned the police about the delay, noting that arrests were made only after the judiciary intervened. “You say CCTV is not there. For 15 days you have not done anything. The moment we take cognisance, you start arresting,” the Chief Justice remarked sharply. The bench also expressed disappointment that the identity of the minor had reportedly been disclosed in an affidavit submitted before the court, despite strict legal safeguards protecting survivors’ anonymity.
Observing that the child’s trauma appeared to have been “multiplied” by the authorities’ actions, the court issued notices to senior police officers, members of the Child Welfare Committee and a doctor associated with the case, seeking explanations regarding their role in the investigation. To ensure a fair probe, the court ordered that the case be transferred to a Special Investigation Team headed by women IPS officers, who will re-examine the evidence and oversee further proceedings.
The court also sought clarification from the district judiciary about the circumstances in which a magistrate reportedly questioned the child in the presence of the accused an action that the bench suggested could be deeply intimidating for a young survivor. The judges emphasised that legal processes involving children must prioritise psychological safety and sensitivity, especially in cases of sexual violence.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Crimes against children demand not only swift justice but also compassion, sensitivity, and strict adherence to survivor-centred procedures. When institutions responsible for delivering justice appear to worsen a survivor’s trauma, it undermines public trust and highlights systemic gaps in training and accountability.
The Supreme Court’s intervention in this case serves as a powerful reminder that investigations into child sexual abuse must prioritise the dignity, safety and emotional well-being of survivors. Laws like the POCSO Act were enacted precisely to ensure that children are protected throughout the legal process, yet their spirit can only be realised when institutions apply them with empathy and understanding.
