The Supreme Court on Wednesday (March 25) set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising three senior women IPS officers from Haryana to investigate the alleged rape of a three-year-old child in Gurgaon.
The court described the handling of the case by the Gurgaon Police and Child Welfare Committee (CWC) as “shameful” and “insensitive”.
After perusing a status report filed by the state government, the three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi asked why the police had “reduced” the offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act – which deals with “aggravated penetrative sexual assault” – to the lesser offence of “aggravated sexual assault” under Section 10 of the Act.
“…The present case reflects a disturbing pattern wherein the police authorities have made concerted efforts to shield the suspects, relying upon an irresponsible and casual report submitted by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC),” the court said.
The SIT, comprising Additional Director General of Police Kala Ramachandran, Superintendent of Police Dr Anshu Singla, and Deputy Commissioner of Police Jasleen Kaur, would carry out a “fair, dispassionate and independent investigation”, the court said.
It asked the state government “to notify the SIT and make the officers available for conducting investigation without any delay”, and directed the Gurgaon Police to “hand over the record to the SIT by tomorrow, i.e., 26.03.2026”.
The court ordered that the Gurgaon Police Commissioner and other officers named in the affidavit “shall be entirely disassociated from this investigation”, and asked these officers “to show cause why appropriate disciplinary and criminal action should not be taken against them”.
Story continues below this ad
The police’s “shifting and inconsistent stance raises serious concerns regarding the fairness and credibility of the investigation,” the court said. “In such circumstances, it is imperative that the incident be subjected to a thorough, impartial, and sensitive investigation, conducted with a humane approach that duly preserves the dignity of the minor victim and her parents.”
According to the FIR registered on February 4, the girl was repeatedly sexually assaulted in December and January by two women domestic helps and their unidentified male accomplice in the family’s home in a high-rise residential complex.
The Bench said that “the manner in which the police authorities, ranging from the Commissioner of Police to the Sub-Inspector, have so far investigated discloses a concerted and unwarranted attempt to discredit the version of the minor victim and to portray the concerns raised by her parents as exaggerated and unfounded.”
However, the material on the record, including the affidavits filed by the police and the report submitted by the judicial magistrate before whom the child was produced, “leaves no manner of doubt that a prima facie case under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), is made out,” the court said.
Story continues below this ad
“Notwithstanding the gravity of the allegations and the material available on record”, however, “the police authorities have, for wholly unjustified and extraneous reasons, sought to dilute the offence by erroneously classifying it under Section 10 of the Act,” it said.
Answering the court’s query over the reduced offence, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati said it was done on the basis of the CWC report and the statement of the survivor child.
Justice Bagchi, however, pointed out that the child’s statement had explicitly referred to acts that constitute aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
“You are disbelieving the emotions of a less than four-year-old by using these third-rate methods of CCTV camera does not show, autorickshaw is not found, etc. Is this the way they have been taught? Shame on them. If the state has any respect for the law, they (police officers) should be transferred from there. Otherwise, you will bear the consequences,” CJI Surya Kant remarked orally.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi noted that two deputy commissioners of police and an assistant commissioner were involved in the probe.
Story continues below this ad
“If this is the quality of understanding sensitivity of an offence on a three-year-old child, what do you expect of the rule of law?” he asked.
The court noted that the CWC members had telephonically asked the child’s father to produce the victim before them. “If they had any sense of respect for the sentiments of a child, they should have gone to the house rather than calling her to their office. They are calling her to the office, as if the victim were a table and chair. Not a three-year-old child,” the CJI said.
The court directed the chairperson and members of the CWC to submit their explanations within a week, and to “show cause as to why they should not be ordered to be removed forthwith”.
