New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Central Government over a 1993 Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) policy that bars pregnant Indian Police Service (IPS) probationers from undergoing training, observing that a provision framed to protect women should not be used to deny them opportunities if they are medically fit.
Hearing a petition filed by Urvashi Sengar (IPS:2023:MP), the apex court sought the Centre’s response by Thursday and asked it to clarify whether she could be allowed to join the ongoing Phase-II training programme at the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy (SVPNPA).
The case has brought into focus whether a blanket prohibition imposed more than three decades ago remains constitutionally valid in light of advancements in medical science and evolving principles of gender equality.
Court Questions Blanket Ban
During the hearing, the Supreme Court observed that every woman’s health condition is different and that decisions regarding participation in training should be based on individual medical fitness rather than a rigid policy.
The bench remarked that the 1993 Office Memorandum (OM) was intended as a beneficial provision for women and not as a mechanism to deprive them of professional opportunities.
The Court asked the Centre, “When the purpose of this OM is to enable training of a fit woman, then why are you stopping her if she is fit?”
The judges further observed that while some women may be medically fit to resume training within a few months after childbirth, others may require a longer recovery period. Therefore, a uniform rule may not be appropriate.
Read also: Who Is Ajay Kumar Singh? Retired Jharkhand DGP Appointed Chairman of JHA-RERA
What Is the 1993 MHA Policy?
The dispute revolves around an Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 1993, governing pregnancy during IPS probationary training.
Under the existing policy:
- A woman IPS probationer who becomes pregnant during training must discontinue the programme immediately.
- She can resume training only one year after childbirth.
- The intervening period is treated as extraordinary leave.
- Although the leave does not affect seniority, the officer is required to complete training with a subsequent batch.
The Supreme Court is examining whether such a blanket prohibition continues to be justified in today’s context.
Urvashi Sengar’s Case
The petition has been filed by Urvashi Sengar (IPS:2023:MP), a direct recruit IPS officer allotted the Madhya Pradesh cadre.
She joined the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy in November 2023 for Phase-I training.
During Phase-II training in April 2025, which largely consists of classroom sessions, academic modules and institutional attachments, she became pregnant and informed the academy authorities.
Sengar delivered her child on September 20, 2025.
When the next Phase-II training commenced on June 20, 2026, around nine months after childbirth, she requested permission to participate, submitting medical certificates stating that she was fit to undergo training.
However, the academy rejected her request citing the 1993 MHA policy and directed her to join with the next batch.
Legal Journey: CAT to Supreme Court
Following the academy’s refusal, Sengar approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
On May 27, 2026, the CAT passed an interim order permitting her to participate in the training subject to medical fitness and completion of required formalities.
Pursuant to the tribunal’s order, the academy initially issued a communication on June 16 allowing her to join.
However, within two days, the permission was withdrawn after the Centre challenged the CAT order before the Delhi High Court.
The Delhi High Court stayed the CAT’s order on June 22, observing that the policy was intended to safeguard both the probationer and the infant.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, Sengar moved the Supreme Court.
Centre Defends Existing Policy
The Central Government opposed any relaxation of the 1993 policy.
It argued that granting relief to one officer could result in similar requests from other probationers, making implementation of the policy difficult.
However, Sengar’s counsel informed the Court that exceptions had been granted in at least two earlier cases where women officers were allowed to continue or resume training despite the policy.
Comparison with IAS Training Rules
During the hearing, the Supreme Court also questioned why IPS probationers continue to be governed by the 1993 policy when the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) introduced medical fitness-based flexibility for IAS probationers in 2004.
The Court indicated that a similar approach based on individual assessment may be more appropriate for IPS officers as well.
Constitutional Questions Before the Court
The petition challenges the constitutional validity of the 1993 Office Memorandum on several grounds.
According to the petitioner, the policy:
- Fails to distinguish between physically demanding and classroom-based phases of training.
- Ignores advances in medical science and maternal healthcare.
- Does not provide for individual medical assessment.
- Violates constitutional guarantees of equality and substantive gender justice.
- Fails to provide reasonable accommodation for women officers.
The Supreme Court will examine whether denying a medically fit woman officer the opportunity to undergo training solely because she has given birth is consistent with Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.
Broader Significance
The outcome of the case is likely to have implications far beyond one officer’s training schedule.
If the Court finds the policy unconstitutional or directs the Centre to modify it, the decision could reshape maternity-related training norms for women officers in the Indian Police Service and influence similar service rules across government.
The matter is expected to continue after the Centre files its response.
