The Supreme Court of India on Monday sharply criticised the Gurugram Police while hearing a case involving the sexual assault of a three-year-old child, calling aspects of the investigation “very disturbing.”
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant expressed concern after reviewing an affidavit filed by the victim’s father, which alleged that the child’s statement was recorded by a magistrate in the presence of the accused.
The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, directed the District and Sessions Judge in Gurugram to seek the magistrate’s comments and submit a report.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the child’s parents, told the court that the family had faced delays and procedural lapses since the FIR was registered. He said the child was repeatedly taken to multiple locations for statements and medical examinations, and was kept in a closed room with individuals during proceedings conducted by the Child Welfare Committee.
Rohatgi alleged that the child was exposed to further trauma during the process, including being questioned in the presence of the accused and without adequate safeguards. He also said the parents were not allowed to be present during certain interactions.
The court questioned the delay in arrests, noting that three individuals, including two domestic workers, were taken into custody only recently. “What were they doing so far?” the CJI asked, adding, “How insensitive has your police become?”
The bench also raised concerns about the conduct of officials, including an instance where a police officer asked the victim’s family what action they wanted instead of initiating mandatory procedures. The court stressed that in such cases, police are duty-bound to act immediately upon receiving information.
The matter pertains to offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
The court has directed the Gurugram Police Commissioner and the investigating officer to appear before it on March 25 with complete records of the investigation.
The bench also indicated concern over further procedures involving the child and said the family need not comply with requests they are uncomfortable with, including appearing again for identification.