The Supreme Court has denied an IPS probationer's request to join her training program after childbirth, citing that one-third of the course has already passed. While the court acknowledged that the 1993 policy mandating a one-year break for new mothers may be outdated, it ruled that the candidate's late entry would compromise the required 95% attendance standard.
The Supreme Court on Friday declined the request of Urvashi Sengar, an Indian Police Service (IPS) probationer of the 2023 batch, to join the current training session at the National Police Academy. The bench, led by Justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar, decided that allowing her to join at this stage would be impractical, as three weeks of the nine-week training program had already concluded.
Challenges to the 1993 Ministry Policy
At the center of the dispute is a 1993 Ministry of Home Affairs office memorandum, which requires women trainees to take a one-year break following childbirth. Ms. Sengar, who was allocated the Madhya Pradesh cadre, gave birth in September 2025 and sought to join the training program that began on June 22, 2026. She argued that she was medically fit to participate. The legal challenge to the validity of the 1993 policy itself remains pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Attendance and Training Integrity
Representing the Central government, Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik argued that the training program requires a mandatory 95% attendance rate to ensure completion. He pointed out that the three weeks already missed by the petitioner included critical components such as physical training and essential field visits. The court agreed with this assessment, noting that permitting a late start would result in incomplete instruction and could be detrimental to the trainee's own professional requirements. While the bench expressed concerns earlier this week about whether the 1993 policy is outdated and potentially penalizes fit candidates, it concluded that the practical requirements of the current course schedule took precedence in this specific case.
The next step for stakeholders will be the outcome of the ongoing case before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which will determine if the 1993 Ministry of Home Affairs memorandum should be revised or struck down for future batches.