Supreme Court Questions Centre's Rule Barring Pregnant IPS Probationers From Training: 'Why Stop Her If She Is Fit?'

The Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar was hearing the plea filed by IPS officer Urvashi Sengar sought the Centre's response by Thursday and asked whether she could be permitted to join the ongoing Phase II training programme, which commenced in June this year.

During the hearing, the Bench remarked: "This is a beneficiary provision under law for protection of women and not to take away the right to undergo training if they are fit for it."

Questioning the rationale behind the policy, the Court further 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 Bench also expressed reservations about the blanket nature of the policy, observing that recovery after childbirth varies from woman to woman.

The Court indicated that while some women may be medically fit to resume training within nine months of childbirth, others may require more time, suggesting that such cases should be decided based on individual medical assessment rather than a rigid rule.

Appearing for the Union government, counsel opposed any relaxation of the policy, arguing that granting relief in one case could open the floodgates for similar claims.

However, counsel representing Sengar submitted that exceptions had been made in the past, with at least two women officers being allowed to continue or resume training despite the 1993 Office Memorandum.

Challenge to 1993 Policy

Sengar's petition challenges the constitutional validity of the 1993 Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which directs women IPS probationers to avoid pregnancy during the training period.

The policy mandates that if an officer becomes pregnant during training, her training must immediately stop. She can resume only one year after childbirth, with the intervening period treated as extraordinary leave without affecting her seniority.

The Supreme Court is examining whether such a blanket prohibition remains constitutionally sustainable in light of advances in medical science and the constitutional guarantees of equality and substantive gender justice.

Background of the Case

Urvashi Sengar, a 2023-batch direct recruit IPS officer allotted to the Madhya Pradesh cadre, joined the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy for Phase I training in November 2023.

During Phase II training in April 2025, which primarily involved classroom sessions, academic modules and institutional attachments, she became pregnant and informed the academy.

After delivering her child on September 20, 2025, Sengar sought permission to join the next Phase II training beginning on June 20, 2026, nearly nine months after childbirth, asserting that she was medically fit.

The academy rejected her request citing the 1993 Office Memorandum and informed her that she could join only with the next batch.

Sengar then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which, by an interim order dated May 27, permitted her to undergo training subject to medical fitness and completion of necessary formalities.

Although the academy initially issued a communication on June 16 allowing her to join, it withdrew the permission within two days. The Centre subsequently challenged the CAT's order before the Delhi High Court, which stayed the tribunal's directions on June 22, observing that the policy sought to safeguard the welfare of both the probationer and her infant.

Before the Supreme Court, Sengar has contended that the 1993 policy fails to distinguish between physically demanding and academic phases of IPS training and ignores modern medical understanding, reasonable accommodation and constitutional principles of substantive gender equality.

The petition raises a broader constitutional issue: Can a woman IPS probationer be denied training solely because she has given birth, without any individual assessment of her medical fitness and ability to participate?