Overview The Supreme Court examined a gruesome case involving a 4‑year‑old girl who was allegedly raped in Haryana. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi highlighted multiple lapses by police, the magistrate, and the Child Welfare Committee ( CWC ) that could re‑traumatise the child. The bench, comprising CJI Surya Kant , Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi, directed officials to appear before the Court with a complete investigation record. Key Developments The magistrate recorded the child’s statement in the presence of the accused, merely four feet away, violating child‑friendly norms. The investigating officer, a lady officer, was suspended for taking a bribe in another POCSO case. The victim was shuffled between hospitals (Max Hospital, Gurugram and Civil Hospital) before a proper medical examination. Police directed the family to approach the CWC office instead of arranging a home visit, and the senior police inspector responded irritably. The parents sought a probe by the CBI or a Special Investigation Team ( SIT ), deeming the Haryana Police investigation unsatisfactory. The magistrate repeatedly urged the child to “sach bolo, sach bolo” (tell the truth) while the accused were present, breaching procedural safeguards. Important Facts The case is recorded as XXX v. State of Haryana | W.P.(Crl.) No. 123/2026 . The bench issued notice directing the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, and the investigating officer to appear on 25 March with the full investigation file. It also asked the Sessions Court to obtain comments from the judicial magistrate who recorded the statement. UPSC Relevance Understanding the procedural lapses in child sexual offence cases is crucial for GS 2 (Polity) and GS 4 (Ethics). The incident underscores the need for: Effective implementation of POCSO provisions, including mandatory home visits by the CWC. Judicial oversight to ensure that magistrates and police adhere to child‑sensitive protocols, a topic often examined in ethics and governance questions. Role of investigative agencies like the CBI and SITs in safeguarding procedural fairness. Way Forward To prevent re‑traumatisation of child victims, the Court may consider issuing guidelines such as: Mandating that statements of child victims be recorded in a separate, secure room, away from the accused, with a parent or guardian present. Ensuring CWC officials conduct home visits as per law, reducing the child’s exposure to unfamiliar environments. Strengthening oversight mechanisms for investigating officers, including swift action against corruption. Institutionalising regular training for police, magistrates, and CWC members on child‑friendly procedures and trauma‑informed interviewing. These measures align with India’s commitment to protect children’s rights and improve the criminal justice system’s responsiveness to sexual offences.