The Supreme Court of India raised concerns on Wednesday regarding a policy instituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in 1993, which mandates a year-long deferment in training for women Indian Police Service (IPS) probationers who have recently given birth, regardless of their medical fitness. The bench, comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar, emphasized that the Office Memorandum (OM) was intended to benefit women, suggesting it should not obstruct training for probationers deemed fit.
“If a probationer is capable of participating in training, why should this policy work against her? It is meant for her benefit, and the intent should be considered,” the bench noted.
This scrutiny occurred during the hearing of a petition by Urvashi Sengar, an IPS probationer, who contested a Delhi High Court ruling that stayed interim relief previously awarded by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Sengar, a 2023 batch IPS officer assigned to the Madhya Pradesh cadre, gave birth on September 20, 2025. Although she claimed to be medically fit by the training’s commencement on June 22, 2026, she was barred from participating, citing the 1993 OM’s stipulation for a one-year break post-childbirth.
After Sengar initially sought relief from the CAT, which allowed her to engage in the training provided she met medical and other requirements, the Delhi High Court intervened, halting the order on the training’s start date. Consequently, Sengar approached the Supreme Court.
During the session, the Supreme Court refrained from opining on the OM’s legality, as the matter is still under the High Court’s consideration. Justice Misra remarked, “This is an interim order (of the CAT). Against an interim order, the High Court interfered, and the matter is pending before the High Court. Not a stage for us to comment.”
More Read
He also reinforced that the OM remains valid until formally revoked. “Ultimately, there is an OM which is operating. It has not been set aside. Whatever the worth of the OM, it must be ultimately set aside… it can’t be discarded like this. It applies to all,” he stated.
The bench cited prior judgements calling the OM discriminatory, prompting an in-depth analysis of its intent. Justice Misra inquired why the policy should disqualify Sengar, who had delivered her child nearly nine months before her next training phase. “The petitioner delivered a child on 20.9.2025, and the training was to commence on 22.6.2026. 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.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Kaushik, representing the Centre, argued the potential for widespread exemption requests, noting that women constitute about 30% of IPS probationers annually. However, the bench suggested that rigid policy enforcement might not always be appropriate. “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,” Justice Misra observed.
More Read
The ASG also posited that postponing the training would not disadvantage Sengar as her seniority would be preserved. In response, the bench emphasized that the policy was intended as a benefit, not a restriction. “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.
Nevertheless, the Court refrained from immediately granting Sengar permission to commence 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 queried.
Sengar’s attorney highlighted that the training was rescheduled for June 22 of the following year and cited precedents where similar exemptions were granted. Furthermore, he noted that the National Police Academy initially allowed her to report based on the CAT’s decision but rescinded the authorization on June 18 before the MHA’s appeal to the High Court.
The bench opted to maintain the issue’s open status, directing the Union government to submit a response to the OM challenge and assess whether Sengar could join the current training program instead of deferring for another year. The hearing is set to continue on July 10.
