Supreme Court’s Verdict on IPS Officer’s Training Post-Childbirth
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India turned down an application by IPS probationer Urvashi Sengar, who sought to join the training at the National Police Academy after giving birth, despite being declared medically fit. The decision was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar.
Sengar, a 2023 batch IPS officer allocated to the Madhya Pradesh cadre, became a mother on September 20, 2025. She sought to commence her training on June 22, 2026, claiming full medical fitness. However, her request was denied based on a 1993 Office Memorandum (OM) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), which stipulates a mandatory one-year break for women trainees post-childbirth.
Legal Proceedings and Arguments
Initially, Sengar approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which allowed her to join the training, contingent upon medical fitness. However, the Delhi High Court stayed this order just as the training was about to begin, prompting Sengar to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.
During the July 8 hearing, the Supreme Court questioned the rationale of the 1993 OM, suggesting it was designed to support, not hinder, women probationers who are medically ready for training. “This OM is basically for the benefit of the women. If she is fit enough to undertake the training, why should it come against her?” observed the Court.
Following these observations, the Court instructed the Centre to determine whether Sengar could still join the ongoing training program.
More Read
Final Decision and Observations
In the subsequent hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Kaushik represented the Centre, informing the Court that the nine-week training program had begun on June 22, with three weeks already completed. The ASG highlighted the significance of the initial weeks, which included critical field visits and exercises specific to the IPS cadre. He emphasized that maintaining a 95% attendance rate is mandatory for probationers, without which they must repeat the training.
Despite agreeing with Sengar’s challenge to the OM, the Bench concluded that allowing her to join at this late stage would undermine the training’s objectives. “If it is a 9-week schedule and 1/3rd is already gone, then it’s a problem. We agree with your submission on merits. But we cannot implement it,” noted the Court.
Sengar’s counsel proposed that she be allowed to attend the remaining training, suggesting that missed segments could be covered later. However, the bench declined, citing the importance of complete training and attendance.
More Read
The Court acknowledged that Sengar’s challenge to the OM was pending before the CAT, ensuring that the Tribunal could proceed independently of the Delhi High Court’s interim observations. The Union government also agreed to withdraw its writ petition from the Delhi High Court.
This case underscores the ongoing discussions on balancing maternity rights and professional obligations in law enforcement training.
