New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday took a dim view of a restricted interpretation of the Ministry of Home Affairs’s (MHA) 1993 Office Memorandum (OM) that barred women IPS probationers from training for a year after they deliver a child.
A bench led by Justice Manoj Misra said the OM should be construed in a woman’s favor and not otherwise, as was done in the case before it. The OM was meant to ensure a woman IPS officer is not forced to undertake the physical training programme during her probationary period.
However, it did not intend to disentitle an officer who was medically fit and willing to commence training, even before the expiry of the one-year timeline, the bench said.
The court made its observation while hearing a 2023-batch woman officer’s plea, challenging the Delhi High Court order that upheld the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy’s view not to accommodate her for the Phase-II training program.
ThePrint reported first on the petition and the discrimination faced by the probationary officer.
Urvashi Sengar, the officer, had requested the academy to induct her in the training schedule that commenced last month.
She wrote the request letter in May, informing the academy that she was medically cleared to begin her training, even though three months were left to complete the one-year break as mentioned in the 1993 OM. Sengar had delivered her child in September last.
Sengar had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), soon after her request was rejected. On 28 May, the tribunal permitted her to attend the Phase-II training subject to medical assessment and requirement.
However, on the academy’s appeal, the HC overturned the CAT order. While the appeal was filed two days before the training was to start, the HC order came on the day it commenced.
On Wednesday, the top court was surprised by the academy’s view and observed the OM was intended to benefit a woman officer. “If she is fit enough to undertake the training, why should it be read against her?” Justice Misra asked.
The judges noted Sengar’s delivery happened nine months ago and that she was in a position to undertake training. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Kaushik, who appeared for the Centre, was asked to study the purpose behind the OM.
The judges opined the OM was to help out women officers, who were not in a position to take other physical activities.
To this, the ASG said that at least 30 percent of candidates clearing IPS are women and if an exemption is granted in one case, then floodgates will open.
At this, the judge told the law officer that there has to be application of mind. “…if the person is fit enough to undertake the training, then why not,” the court said, adding that there cannot be uniform application of the rule.
“One person may not be fit, while one may be. A person may not be fit for two years, depending upon the complication of the surgery,” the bench remarked.
The judges then read out the OM to point out that its provisions should be read in a way that gives them the benefit and not in a way that takes away their right to undergo training.
Sengar’s lawyer Avinash Sharma informed the bench that the academy had given exemptions to two candidates in the past, a point ignored by the Delhi HC in its order, but was included in CAT’s.
The CAT order was not a carte blanche, but was subject to certain requirements, Sharma contended.
As the court issued notice to the Centre and the academy and fixed Friday to hear the matter, it asked the ASG to find out whether Sengar can attend extra classes to cover-up sessions that she has missed, considering the training began on 22 June.
This direction was given after Sharma informed the bench that Sengar would be entitled to join the training next year with a new batch. He impressed upon the court that the officer was not at fault and, therefore, she cannot be punished.
“It was they (academy and Centre) who took more than 20 days to appeal against the CAT order, while we challenged the HC order within two days,” Sharma told the bench, addressing the issue of whether Sengar should be allowed to join the training belatedly.
In her plea, Sengar has said the 1993 OM fails to draw a distinction between the two training phases. It fails to reflect the contemporary realities of modern training design, phased modules, availability of reasonable accommodation, and constitutional norms of substantive gender equality.
A significant question posed is whether a blanket exclusion can be imposed upon a woman IPS probationer solely on account of childbirth, without any individualised assessment of medical fitness, capability or assessment.
Sengar pointed out that a similar exclusion existed for women IAS probationers. However, in 2004, the Department of Personnel and Training’s (DoPT) amended it, giving the IAS women officers discretion to complete the training.
The new policy replaced the blanket prohibition with a fitness-based, individualised and reasonable accommodation approach, she said.
However, an outdated OM is being followed, in its rigid form, for IPS women officers, even though the Phase-II training programme primarily comprises academic academic modules, classroom sessions and institutional attachments, including attending classes in Indian Institute of Management.
Since it is not physically strenuous, largely choice-based, which includes activities such as yoga and swimming, recommended in pregnancy subject to medical advice, it makes sense in the present times to continue with the OM, the officer submitted.
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Also Read: Just 8% of country’s police officers are women, 12% in IPS, finds India Justice Report 2025