Supreme Court to hear new mother’s plea against mandatory year-long postpartum break in IPS training

Published 9 July 2026 · local

The Supreme Court of India is scheduled to hear on July 10 the appeal of a woman Indian Police Service (IPS) probationer who has questioned

The Supreme Court of India is scheduled to hear on July 10 the appeal of a woman Indian Police Service (IPS) probationer who has questioned a 36-year-old policy of the Home Ministry which requires new mothers like her to take a year’s postpartum break from training. On July 8, a Bench headed by Justice Manoj Misra had sought the government’s response to a petition filed by Urvashi Sengar. The court’s order, published on July 9, highlighted Ms. Sengar’s query on whether the policy aims to disentitle new parents like her rather than protecting them. Unwelcome delay Sengar, who gave birth on September 29 last year, submitted that she had volunteered for the requisite training, which was to commence on June 22 this year.

However, the concerned department had refused her permission, citing the Ministry’s Office Memorandum (OM) of August 23, 1993, which provided for “a year’s hiatus in training post delivery”. Sengar had challenged the OM before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). In a detailed interim order, the tribunal had permitted her to participate in the Phase-II training scheduled on June 22 this year, subject to the fulfilment of the requisite undertakings, formalities, medical requirements, etc. The Delhi High Court, however, had intervened against her in an order passed on June 22, the very day of the commencement of the training. Question of intent Issuing notice on her appeal in a hearing on July 8, the Supreme Court recorded Ms. Sengar’s primary challenge, asking what exactly the intention of the OM is.

Can a woman IPS probationer be stopped from undertaking training even if she is fit to do so, Ms. Sengar had asked the court. The court began its order with the very question raised by Ms. Sengar through her counsel, as to whether the “OM issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which has been in force since August 23, 1993, be construed as one to protect lady I.P.S probationers and not as one which disentitles them to undertake training even if they are fit to undertake training”. The Bench also took note of the submissions made by the petitioner that two similarly placed probationers had received exemptions from the rigours of the OM.

The top court had asked Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik, appearing for the Union government, to seek instructions and report back on July 10 as to whether Ms. Sengar could join training.