Supreme Court disposes Urvashi Sengar’s plea, asks CAT to decide challenge to 1993 MHA policy

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday disposed of the petition filed by IPS officer Urvashi Sengar challenging the Ministry of Home Affairs’ 1993 Office Memorandum that bars women IPS probationers from resuming training for one year after childbirth. The Court directed the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to decide the matter independently, without being influenced by the observations made by the Delhi High Court.

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar was informed by the Centre that the Phase-II training at the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy had commenced on June 22 and that three weeks of the nine-week programme had already been completed. The Centre submitted that the course requires 95% attendance and that the initial weeks included physical training, field visits and cadre-specific modules.

Observing that one-third of the training had already concluded, the Supreme Court said permitting Sengar to join midway would not ensure proper training. When her counsel suggested that she be allowed to attend the remaining part of the programme, the Bench termed the proposal “absurd”. The Court, however, observed that her seniority should not be affected because of the delay.

During the hearing, the Centre informed the Court that Sengar’s original challenge to the 1993 policy is already pending before the CAT. Taking note of the submission, the Court disposed of the petition and directed the Tribunal to decide the matter on its own merits.

At the previous hearing, the Supreme Court had questioned the constitutional validity of the 1993 MHA policy, observing that a welfare provision meant to protect women should not be used to deny opportunities to officers who are medically fit.

Sengar, a 2023-batch IPS officer of the Madhya Pradesh cadre, had sought permission to join the Phase-II training after giving birth in September 2025, stating that she was medically fit. The police academy declined her request citing the 1993 Office Memorandum, after which she approached the CAT. The Tribunal had allowed her to undergo training through an interim order, but the decision was later stayed by the Delhi High Court following the Centre’s challenge.