The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the rationale behind a 1993 Office Memorandum (OM) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), which requires women Indian Police Service (IPS) probationers to defer their training for a year after childbirth, even if they are medically fit to undergo it.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar observed that the policy was intended to benefit women officers and should not be interpreted in a manner that deprives a fit and willing probationer of the opportunity to undergo training.

"If she is in a position to undertake training, why should this OM be read against her? It is only for her benefit. You have to see the purpose," the Bench remarked.

The observations came while hearing a petition filed by IPS probationer Urvashi Sengar, a 2023-batch officer allotted to the Madhya Pradesh cadre. Sengar challenged a Delhi High Court order that stayed the interim relief granted to her by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

Sengar gave birth to a child on September 20, 2025, and claimed that she had fully recovered by the time Phase-II training was scheduled to begin on June 22, 2026. Despite submitting that she was medically fit, the authorities denied her permission to join the training, relying on the 1993 Office Memorandum, which provides for a one-year break in training after childbirth.

The CAT had earlier permitted Sengar to attend the training, subject to medical fitness and other formalities. However, on the very day the training was set to commence, the Delhi High Court stayed the Tribunal's order, prompting her to approach the Supreme Court.

At the outset, the Supreme Court clarified that it was not inclined to examine the validity of the Office Memorandum at this stage since the challenge to the policy is still pending before the High Court.

Justice Misra observed that the OM continues to remain in force unless it is struck down by a competent court.

"There is an OM which is operating. It has not been set aside. Whatever the worth of the OM, it has to be ultimately set aside. It can't be discarded like this. It applies to all," he said.

Even so, the Bench questioned whether the policy should be applied mechanically without considering the individual circumstances of each officer.

Referring to Sengar's case, Justice Misra noted that nearly nine months had elapsed between the birth of her child and the commencement of training.

"The petitioner delivered a child on 20.09.2025, the training was to commence on 22.06.2026. Nearly nine months. If she is in a position to undertake training, why should this OM be read against her? It is only for her benefit," he observed.

Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik submitted that women constitute nearly 30 per cent of IPS probationers every year and relaxing the policy could lead to similar requests from others.

The Bench, however, said that a blanket application of the policy may not always be justified.

"You have to apply your mind to whether the person is fit enough to undertake the training. You cannot simply deal with everyone in the same manner. One person may be fit, another may not be. A person may not be fit for two years. It depends on the nature of the complication or the surgery," Justice Misra remarked.

When the Centre argued that Sengar would not suffer any prejudice because her seniority would remain protected even if she joined the next batch, the Court reiterated that a welfare measure should not operate to the disadvantage of the very person it seeks to protect.

"This is a beneficiary provision. It shouldn't take away the right of a healthy person to undergo training. If they are fit enough and willing to undergo training, why should you prevent them?" the Bench asked.

The Court, however, did not immediately permit Sengar to join the ongoing training, noting that the programme had already commenced on June 22.

"But now the problem is the date of commencement of Phase-II has already passed. So you wait for three more months. What's the difficulty? Are you losing your seniority?" Justice Misra observed.

Sengar's counsel responded that the next phase of training would only begin nearly a year later and argued that similarly placed IPS officers had previously been granted exemptions. He also submitted that Sengar was willing to attend additional classes to make up for the portion of training she had missed.

It was further pointed out that the National Police Academy had initially allowed Sengar to report for training pursuant to the CAT's order, but withdrew the communication on June 18, even before the Union government challenged the Tribunal's order before the Delhi High Court.

The Supreme Court has now asked the Union government to file its response to the challenge against the Office Memorandum and take instructions on whether Sengar can be accommodated in the ongoing training programme instead of waiting for the next batch.

The matter will be heard again on July 10.