In Brief
A British-Kenyan father and Indian mother disputed custody of their young son. The High Court of Delhi referred them to mediation and arranged for a counsellor to assess the child's welfare. When mediation failed, the father relied on the counsellor's report; the mother claimed it was confidential. The Supreme Court held that in child custody matters, reports documenting a counsellor's direct observations of the child are not confidential mediation communications but expert evidence available to guide the court's parens patriae jurisdiction. Confidentiality rules, though important in mediation generally, do not apply to such child welfare assessments. The Court also found the High Court wrongly exercised review jurisdiction by changing the earlier judgment through reasoned analysis rather than identifying a self-evident error.",
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.