Supreme Court Questions Centre Over Blanket Ban On Pregnant IPS Officers During Probation Training

The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Centre over a 1993 government policy that bars pregnant Indian Police Service (IPS) probationers from undergoing training, observing that a beneficiary provision introduced for women cannot be used to deny them opportunities if they are medically fit.

Hearing a petition filed by IPS officer Urvashi Sengar, the court sought the Centre's response by Thursday and asked it to clarify whether she could be permitted to join the Phase-II training programme, which commenced in June this year.

"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," the bench observed while examining the validity of the Ministry of Home Affairs' 1993 Office Memorandum (OM).

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 observed that a blanket rule may not be appropriate, noting that while some women may be fit to resume training within nine months of childbirth, others may require much longer. It indicated that such cases should be assessed individually rather than through a rigid policy.

The Centre opposed any relaxation of the policy, arguing that granting relief in one case could open the floodgates for similar claims.

However, counsel appearing for Sengar told the court that exceptions had been granted in two such cases in the past, with women officers being permitted to continue or resume training despite the 1993 policy.

What The Case Is About

The petition challenges the constitutional validity of the 1993 Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which directs women IPS probationers to avoid conceiving during their training period. It mandates that if an officer becomes pregnant, her training must be stopped immediately.

Under the policy, the officer is required to remain out of training for one year after childbirth, after which training resumes. The period is treated as extraordinary leave and does not affect seniority.

The Supreme Court is examining whether such a blanket prohibition can continue to operate in light of advances in medical science and constitutional guarantees of equality, or whether decisions should instead be based on individual medical assessment and fitness.

Urvashi Sengar's Case

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

While undergoing Phase-II training in April 2025, which primarily comprises classroom sessions, academic modules and institutional attachments, she became pregnant and informed the authorities.

She delivered her child on September 20, 2025. With the next Phase-II training scheduled to begin on June 20, 2026 - around nine months after childbirth - she sought permission to join, stating that she was medically fit.

The academy, however, declined 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, in an interim order on May 27, allowed her to participate in the training subject to medical fitness and other formalities.

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

Before the Supreme Court, Sengar has argued that the 1993 policy does not distinguish between physically intensive and academic phases of training and fails to account for modern training practices, reasonable accommodation and constitutional principles of substantive gender equality.

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