E-Paper
Medically fit IPS mothers can’t be barred from training: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that women Indian Police Service (IPS) officers who are medically fit should be allowed to decide whether they want to undergo their probationary training after childbirth, underlining that a 1993 Office Memorandum (OM) mandating a one-year hiatus from the date of delivery cannot be interpreted as an absolute bar against their participation
Prefer HTon Google
The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that women Indian Police Service (IPS) officers who are medically fit should be allowed to decide whether they want to undergo their probationary training after childbirth, underlining that a 1993 Office Memorandum (OM) mandating a one-year hiatus from the date of delivery cannot be interpreted as an absolute bar against their participation.
A bench of justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar said that the Centre must appreciate that the objective of the 1993 OM was to protect the health of pregnant IPS probationers and new mothers, not to disable or prevent them from attending training if they are willing and medically fit.
“If she is in a position to undertake the training, why should this disable her? You must appreciate what is the purpose of this regulation. The regulation is not to stop them totally but to protect them,” the bench remarked while hearing a petition filed by IPS officer Urvashi Sengar.
The court stressed that the provision is beneficial in nature and, therefore, deserves an interpretation that advances the interests of women officers rather than restricting them. A one-year hiatus puts an officer at a disadvantage in terms of seniority -- one of the criteria for key positions down the line.
“This is a beneficial provision. It has to be read in the way it benefits them...protects them and not the other way round. The purpose is to give them protection and not to prevent them from undergoing the training. If they are willing and are fit enough to undergo the training, why should we prevent them?” observed Justice Misra.
Questioning the Centre’s reliance on a blanket prohibition, the bench said that authorities cannot apply the policy mechanically to every woman officer without considering her individual medical condition.
“You have to apply your mind and then take a call. You cannot simply say we will deal with everyone in the same manner. You have to assess who is fit and who is not fit. A person may not be fit even for two years because of the seriousness of surgery etc,” it said.
The court also drew attention to the opening portion of the 1993 OM, observing that it was issued after instances concerning the health of women probationers were brought to the notice of the government. “Read the opening line of the OM...then it talks about protecting their health,” it noted.
The observations came on a petition filed by Sengar, a 2023-batch IPS officer of the Madhya Pradesh cadre, challenging the continued application of the 1993 OM that mandates women IPS probationers who deliver a child to undergo a compulsory one-year break before resuming training.
Sengar delivered her child on September 20, 2025, and volunteered to participate in the Phase-II training programme that commenced on June 22 this year, contending that she was medically fit. However, the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy declined her request, stating that the OM required her to wait until the next training cycle.
Appearing for Sengar, her counsel submitted that the Phase-II programme largely comprises classroom sessions and academic modules and that any missed classes could be made up through additional sessions. He also pointed out that waiting for the next batch could delay her career progression by a year.
The bench then issued notice to the Centre and asked additional solicitor general Anil Kaushik to obtain instructions by Friday on whether Sengar could be permitted to join the ongoing training programme even at this stage.
“It appears from the impugned order that the training commenced from June 22. We therefore deem it appropriate to require the ASG to seek instructions whether at this stage the petitioner can join the training,” directed the court.
Recording the petitioner’s submissions, the bench noted that the 1993 OM ought to be construed as a measure intended to protect women IPS probationers rather than disentitle them from undergoing training if they are medically fit. It also took note of Sengar’s contention that two women officers had earlier been granted exemptions from the rigours of the OM.
The controversy centres around a 1993 office memorandum issued by the home ministry at a time when IPS training involved prolonged physically intensive activities. The policy requires pregnant probationers to discontinue training immediately upon conception and resume only after completion of one year from the date of delivery.
Sengar has argued that the policy has become outdated and is inconsistent with contemporary medical science, constitutional guarantees of substantive gender equality and the flexible structure of the current Phase-II training, which primarily consists of classroom instruction, institutional attachments and academic modules rather than strenuous physical exercises.
Her plea also points out that a similar restriction applicable to women IAS probationers was removed in 2004 after the Department of Personnel and Training adopted a fitness-based approach, allowing officers to complete training based on individual medical assessment instead of a blanket prohibition.
The petition challenges the Delhi high court’s interim order staying a direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had permitted Sengar to participate in the Phase-II training subject to fulfilment of medical requirements and other formalities.
