Meenakshi Shukla
On 11 June 2025, the Supreme Court was apprised that a woman Additional District Judge (ADJ) from Jharkhand, who, despite being a single parent, was earlier denied 194 days of child care leave, has been granted partial relief by the Jharkhand High Court after the Supreme Court’s intervention. The update pertains to the ongoing case, Kashika M. Prasad v. State of Jharkhand, W.P.(C) No. 554 of 2025, in which the judge moved to the apex court challenging the partial approval of her leave request and alleging that adverse ACR remarks were made against her in retaliation.
The petitioner, Kashika M. Prasad, is an Additional District Judge in Jharkhand who has challenged the partial denial of her request for 194 days of child care leave (CCL). She has also alleged that adverse entries were made in her Annual Confidential Report (ACR) in retaliation after she approached the Supreme Court seeking redress.
According to her plea, the Jharkhand High Court approved only 92 days of her requested leave without offering a clear explanation. The judge asserted that this partial approval was not only arbitrary but also inconsistent with established service rules that allow women judicial officers to avail Child Care Leave in full under genuine circumstances. After filing the writ petition, she further claimed that her ACR was adversely modified, a move she considers vindictive and violative of her fundamental rights as a judicial officer.
The matter first came up before the Supreme Court on May 29, 2025. A bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih took serious note of the issue and issued notices to both the State of Jharkhand and the Jharkhand High Court. The Bench remarked that the matter deserved close attention and accordingly decided to keep it “on a short leash.” This signalled the Court’s intent to ensure that the issue would be addressed expeditiously and fairly.
When the case was heard again on June 6, 2025, a vacation bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan was informed that the High Court had subsequently granted 92 days of the requested 194 days of CCL. While this partial relief came after the Supreme Court’s intervention, it did not fully address the petitioner’s grievance. The Court recorded this development and directed the respondents to file a counter-affidavit within four weeks. During the hearing, the Bench also took note of the fresh allegations that the adverse ACR entries were made post the filing of the writ petition.
On June 11, 2025, the Supreme Court listed the matter once again before its vacation bench. An interlocutory application (IA) regarding the ACR entries was formally taken on record, and the Bench issued notice on the IA as well. The case has now been adjourned for final hearing in the first week of August 2025, with all pleadings expected to be completed before that date.
As of now, no final judgment has been passed. The case remains at the stage of counter-affidavit submissions and interlocutory matters. However, its implications are already being widely discussed in legal circles.
Case Name: Kashika M. Prasad v. State of Jharkhand
Case No. : W.P.(C) No. 554 of 2025
Bench : Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan
Instagram: Click here
LinkedIn: Click here
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com
