After months of legal wrangling and a strong prod from the country’s top court, a woman judge from Jharkhand—battling both the bench and the burdens of single parenthood—has finally been granted 92 days of child care leave by the Jharkhand High Court. But that’s less than half of what she originally asked for.
The case first reached the Supreme Court after the Additional District Judge (ADJ) was denied leave to care for her child, despite being a single parent. The Supreme Court had then gently nudged the High Court to reconsider her plea.
Now, following the reconsideration, her lawyer told a Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan that while the leave had been granted, it fell far short of the 194 days she had applied for.
“I’ve been sanctioned 92 days—from June through September,” her counsel informed. “But I had requested leave starting from December last year.”
Alongside the truncated leave, a new twist emerged—fresh, suspicious entries had reportedly been added to the judge’s Annual Confidential Report (ACR) shortly after she petitioned the Supreme Court.
“There are suggestive remarks in my ACR following the filing of my writ. I’m from a Scheduled Caste category and one of the best-performing judicial officers, with an excellent case disposal record,” the counsel said, questioning both the timing and intent of these entries. Though the entries were officially termed ‘not adverse,’ their implications raised concern.
The Court, while sympathetic, separated the ACR issue from the primary child care leave matter, and asked the petitioner to file a formal application if she wished to pursue it.
Meanwhile, representing the High Court administration, Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha pointed out that the judge’s current litigation stemmed from a transfer order, not from a denial of leave. “Her first letter didn’t mention child care—it was about a transfer to Ranchi or Bokaro,” he submitted. “The current request is for exams in 2026. We’ve already given 94 days in total. That’s significant, given the full career allowance is 720 days.”
Sinha warned against setting a precedent that might disrupt judicial functioning, especially if senior judges take extended leaves.
The top court, however, maintained a balanced stance. It allowed the 92-day leave to stand and instructed the High Court to file its counter-affidavit within four weeks. When the judge’s counsel raised concerns over possible withholding of salary during this sanctioned leave, Sinha brushed it aside. “That’s purely speculative. No salary is being withheld.”
The matter will now return for a hearing in early August.
A career on the line. A child’s future in the balance. And a judiciary still negotiating how much compassion can fit within court calendars.
