Supreme Court questions MHA policy barring women IPS officers from training for a year after childbirth

The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the rationale behind a 1993 Office Memorandum (OM) of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) that prevents women Indian Police Service (IPS) probationers from joining training for a year after childbirth despite claiming to be medically fit.

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar remarked that the OM was meant to benefit women and should not be interpreted to deny training to a probationer who is fit to undergo it.

“If she is in a position to undertake training, why should this OM be read against her? It is only for her benefit. You have to see the purpose,” the Bench observed.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by IPS probationer Urvashi Sengar who challenged a Delhi High Court order staying interim relief granted to her by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

Sengar, a 2023 batch IPS officer allotted to the Madhya Pradesh cadre, delivered a child on September 20, 2025. Though she claimed that she recovered and was medically fit by the time the training was to begin on June 22, 2026, the authorities declined permission by relying on the 1993 OM, which provides for a year’s hiatus in training after childbirth.

Sengar first approached the CAT, which permitted her to participate in the training, subject to medical fitness and other formalities. However, the Delhi High Court stayed that order on the very day the training was to begin.

She the moved the Supreme Court.

At the outset of today's hearing, the top court indicated that it was not inclined to comment on the validity of the Office Memorandum at this stage since the challenge remains pending before the High Court.

“This is an interim order (of the CAT). Against an interim order the High Court interfered, now the matter is pending before the High Court. Not a stage for us to comment,” Justice Misra observed.

He added that the Office Memorandum continues to operate unless it is struck down.

“Ultimately there is an OM which is operating. It has not been set aside. Whatever the worth of the OM, it has to be ultimately set aside… it can’t be discarded like this. It applies to all,” he said.

He then turned to earlier court orders which had held the OM to be discriminatory.

This prompted the Bench to closely examine the purpose behind the 1993 policy.

“This is (OM) basically is for the benefit of the women. If she is fit enough to undertake the training, why should it come against her?” Justice Misra asked Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Kaushik, appearing for Centre.

Noting that Sengar had delivered her child nearly nine months before the commencement of Phase-II training, the judge questioned why the policy should automatically disentitle her from participating despite her claim of being fit.

“The petitioner delivered a child on 20.9.2025, the training was to commence on 22.6.26. Nine months virtually. If she is in a position to undertake training, why should this OM be read against her? It is only for her benefit. You have to see the purpose,” he added.

ASG Kaushik submitted that nearly 30 per cent of IPS probationers joining training every year are women and granting such exemptions could open the floodgates.

However, the Bench indicated that a uniform application of the policy may not always be justified.

“You have to apply your mind to whether the person is fit enough to undertake the training. You cannot simply say that you will be dealing with everything with the same kind of condition. One person may be fit, the other may not be fit. A person may not be fit for two years. It depends on the nature of the complication or the surgery,” Justice Misra observed.

When the ASG argued that postponing training would not prejudice Sengar since her seniority would remain protected, the Bench responded that the policy itself was meant to confer a benefit.

“This is a beneficiary provision. It shouldn’t take away the right of a healthy person to undergo training. If they are fit enough, willing to undergo training why should you prevent them?” the Court asked.

However, the Court stopped short of immediately allowing Sengar to join training.

"But now the problem is the date of commencement of phase 2 has already passed on 22nd June. So you wait for 3 more months. What’s the difficulty? Are you losing your seniority?" Justice Misra said.

Sengar's counsel argued that the training was scheduled for June 22 next year, almost a year later. He also pointed out that similarly situated IPS officers had previously been granted exemptions and that Sengar could attend extra classes to make up for the portion of training already missed.

He further submitted that the National Police Academy had initially issued a communication permitting her to report for training pursuant to the CAT’s order but withdrew it on June 18, even before the Union government had approached the Delhi High Court.

The Bench then decided to keep the issue open. It asked the Union government to file a reply to the challenge to the OM and take instructions on whether Sengar could still be accommodated in the ongoing training programme instead of waiting for another year.

The matter will be heard next on July 10.