INTRODUCTION
The breakdown of a marriage is hardly ever confined to the two spouses alone. Divorce can tear families apart, and where children are involved, the harm is rarely only physical. One of the most contested and significant phenomena to emerge in the field of family law and psychology is the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). First coined by the American child psychiatrist Dr Richard A. Gardner in 1985, PAS has generated intense debate among psychologists, family lawyers, and judges worldwide. PAS raises a crucial question for Indian family law: Should Indian Courts legally recognise this syndrome? While courts in jurisdictions such as the United States, Brazil, and Canada have developed frameworks to address PAS in custody disputes, Indian family law has yet to formally engage with it. This blog examines whether such recognition is both desirable and feasible in the Indian context.
UNDERSTANDING PAS
Gardener first conceptualised PAS through his personal clinical observations and work as an expert witness in child custody disputes. He defined it as a syndrome where a parent distances the child from the other parent by manipulating the child to unjustifiably reject or denigrate the parent, thereby damaging the child’s relationship with that parent.[1]
Gardner identified a cluster of behavioural symptoms in the affected child, including persistent and unjustified denigration of the targeted parent, reflexive support for the alienating parent, and the use of language that mirrors the alienating parent’s own framing, suggesting external coaching rather than genuine sentiment. However, it is important to distinguish PAS from situations involving genuine abuse or neglect, where a child’s reluctance to engage with a parent may be entirely justified. The legal challenge PAS poses is one of evidence and admissibility: courts must determine whether a child’s expressed reluctance to engage with a parent is a genuine preference or an induced one, a distinction that carries significant consequences for custody outcomes. The American Psychological Association has dismissed the syndrome owing to its lack of supporting empirical or clinical evidence, and it doesn’t appear in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11).[2] The WHO has also excluded parental alienation from the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) as a disorder[3].
Despite being highly controversial, the concept is utilised in civil courts in countries such as the USA, Brazil, Italy, Canada, and Australia to address accusations of alienating behaviour in custody disputes. Brazil was also the first country to legally codify and penalise PAS. Having established what PAS is and why it is legally significant, the question becomes: how has Indian law responded?
PAS IN THE INDIAN LEGAL LANDSCAPE
Child custody in India is primarily determined by the “best interests of the child,” where welfare is the foundational principle across statutes. Courts have broadly interpreted this to encompass physical, mental, emotional, and educational well-being. It operates through laws such as the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and personal law statutes such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Under Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, the court considers the child’s physical, emotional, intellectual, and social welfare[4][5].
The Supreme Court of India, in Gaurav Nagpal v Sumedha Nagpal,[6] reiterated that the paramount consideration in custody disputes must be the best interest of the child, not the rights of the parents. It also broadened the meaning of the term “welfare”, now including both physical and moral welfare. This implicitly creates space for PAS to be treated as a welfare concern, yet the Court did not articulate any standard for identifying or proving such conduct. Similarly, in Nil Ratan Kundu v Abhijit Kundu[7], the Court emphasised that the court acts as parens patriae (protective parents) and is not bound by any rigid formula in determining what serves the child’s welfare.
While Indian courts have not yet formally invoked PAS by name, there are numerous judicial decisions that touch upon its essence and acknowledge its effect. In Vivek Singh v Romani Singh, [8] one of the earliest Indian cases to explicitly use the term “parental alienation”, the apex court expressed concern over a parent’s attempts to alienate the child from the other parent, recognising that such conduct was prejudicial to the child’s welfare. The significance of Vivek Singh lies not in a formal recognition of PAS but in the Court’s acknowledgement that deliberate alienation is prejudicial to the child’s welfare, establishing a judicial foundation upon which a more structured framework could be built.
Most significantly, the Supreme Court directly addressed PAS in Ramneesh Pal Singh v Sugandhi Aggarwal,[9] a landmark 2024 judgment delivered by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Vikram Nath. In this case, the mother argued that the children had been subjected to PAS by the father, seeking to challenge their expressed preference to reside with him. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that courts ought not to prematurely label any parent as a propagator of PAS without first identifying specific, concrete instances of alienating behaviour. The Court emphasised that such a label carries far-reaching implications and must not be attributed routinely without an evidentiary basis. Critically, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s order, which had relied on an unsubstantiated assumption of parental alienation to grant shared custody, and restored the Family Court’s order granting primary custody to the father. The judgment is significant for two reasons. First, it confirms that PAS is a concept Indian courts are willing to engage with. Second, and more critically, it sets a high evidentiary threshold; alienating behaviour must be specifically proven, not merely alleged. This standard protects against misuse while simultaneously acknowledging that the phenomenon is legally cognizable.
THE CASE FOR LEGAL RECOGNITION IN INDIA
There are compelling reasons to advocate for the formal recognition of parental alienation within Indian family law jurisprudence.
First, the formal recognition of PAS would reinforce the welfare principle. Indian courts have consistently interpreted the best interest of the child to encompass emotional, physical and psychological well-being. Providing a structured framework for identifying alienating conduct would equip the courts with greater clarity in complex custody disputes.
Second, such recognition would align Indian law with its international obligations. Article 9(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), to which India is a signatory, specifically obliges States to respect the right of a child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents regularly, except where this is contrary to the child’s best interests. [10]
Parental alienation, by its very nature, places this right in jeopardy. When one parent systematically conditions a child to reject the other, the child’s refusal to maintain contact is not a freely formed preference but an artificially engineered estrangement. Formal recognition of parental alienation as a legally cognizable pattern of conduct would give courts the mechanism to look beyond the surface of a child’s expressed reluctance and examine whether it is genuinely held or induced.
The case for recognition is strong, but it must be accompanied by safeguards that prevent the framework from being misused.
CONCERNS AND CAUTIONS
Legal recognition of PAS is not without legitimate concerns. The risk of misuse is significant, particularly in cases involving domestic violence or child abuse, where a survivor parent’s protective conduct might be mischaracterised as alienation. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Ramneesh Pal Singh case[11] is instructive in this regard. By insisting on specific evidence of alienating behaviour before courts invoke PAS, the Court has implicitly established a safeguard against misuse.
CONCLUSION
Parental alienation is a lived reality for thousands of children and parents navigating the Indian family court system. PAS should be legally recognised in India, but with precision and caution. Indian law already possesses the jurisprudential foundation to address parental alienation through the welfare principle, which encompasses the psychological harm that parental alienation can inflict. The child’s welfare must always come first. But protecting that welfare fully means acknowledging that parental alienation is real, harmful, and deserving of clear legal recognition.
Author: Ananya Nitesh Goyal (O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat)
References:
[1] Richard A Gardner, THE PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME (Creative Therapeutics 1998)
[2] Apa Dictionary of Psychology (American Psychological Association 2023)
[3] ‘Parental Alienation’ (World Health Organization) <https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/frequently-asked-questions/parental-alienation> accessed 15 March 2026
[4] Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, s 13
[5] Guardians and Wards Act 1890, s 17
[6] Gaurav Nagpal v Sumedha Nagpal (2009) 1 SCC 42
[7] Nil Ratan Kundu v Abhijit Kundu (2008) 9 SCC 413
[8] Vivek Singh v Romani Singh (2017) 4 SCC 573
[9] Col Ramneesh Pal Singh v Sugandhi Aggarwal (2024) SCC OnLine SC 847
[10] Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, art 9(3)
[11] Col Ramneesh Pal Singh v Sugandhi Aggarwal (2024) SCC OnLine SC 847
