After Supreme Court nudge, Jharkhand High Court grants 92 days child care leave to woman judge

The Supreme Court on Wednesday was informed that the woman Additional District Judge (ADJ) from Jharkhand, whose request for child care leave was earlier rejected despite being a single parent, has secured partial relief from the Jharkhand High Court for the time being [Kashika M Prasad vs State of Jharkhand].

After the ADJ had moved the Supreme Court for relief, the top court had earlier asked the High Court to reconsider her application for leave.

Today, the petitioner-judge's counsel informed the Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan that while the High Court has now sanctioned child care leave, it was significantly less than what had been sought.

“I have been given leave for 92 days. I had sought for 194 days,” the petitioner’s counsel submitted.

In response to the Court's query, the ADJ's counsel added that the leave granted was from June to September. Her initial application had requested leave for the months starting from December, her counsel further said.

Notably, an application was also filed alleging that adverse remarks were entered into the ADJ's Annual Confidential Report (ACR) after she approached the Supreme Court.

The petitioner-judge's counsel submitted that soon after she filed the writ petition before the Supreme Court, the judge received entries in her ACR that she found disturbing and suspicious in timing.

"One more thing is very disturbing. Now there are some entries in my ACR. Which I have brought on record. They were subsequent to me filing writ petition. I am an officer belonging to SC category and disposed off huge number of cases. One or the best performing officers…. There are suggestive entries made during performance counselling. They are saying the remarks are not adverse in nature. Communicated to me on 23rd May. My career record has been outstanding. Kindly see the timing," he said.

The Bench, in turn, observed that such grievances were not the subject matter of the main petition and directed the petitioner to file a separate application.

When counsel pointed out that additional documents relating to the ACR were already on record, the Court clarified:

“File a substantive prayer. It’s an application for directions. We’ll direct them to file a counter.”

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha, who appeared for the High Court of Jharkhand (administrative side), argued that the present litigation was a fallout of a prior transfer order.

He added that granting extended leave to a District Judge could set an unsustainable precedent.

“This is for the exam of a 16-and-a-half-year-old child in 2026. The writ under Article 32 was filed right after her transfer. In her first letter, there was no reference to child care — she only sought a transfer to Ranchi or Bokaro. In deference to the Supreme Court’s 6 June order, we’ve already granted 94 days. That should make her happy. The total permissible leave is 720 days for an entire career. If judges go on leave for eight months at a stretch, it disrupts disposal of matters when the head of the district is away,” Sinha submitted.

The top court eventually said that the 92-day leave already sanctioned may proceed. It also asked the High Court to file its counter-affidavit in the meantime.

“Let them proceed with 92 days. In the meanwhile, let them file counter,” the Court said.

This response is to be filed within four weeks.

Before rising, the petitioner's counsel also requested that the Court issue directions to ensure that ADJ's salary is not withheld in light of the now-sanctioned leave.

“This is very presumptive. Nobody is holding the salary,” Sinha (for the High Court administration) responded.

The matter will be heard next in the first week of August.

[Read Live Coverage]