Supreme Court questions MHA policy barring women IPS officers from training for a year after childbirth

At the outset of today's hearing, the top court indicated that it was not inclined to comment on the validity of the Office Memorandum at this stage since the challenge remains pending before the High Court.

“This is an interim order (of the CAT). Against an interim order the High Court interfered, now the matter is pending before the High Court. Not a stage for us to comment,” Justice Misra observed.

He added that the Office Memorandum continues to operate unless it is struck down.

“Ultimately 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.

He then turned to earlier court orders which had held the OM to be discriminatory.

This prompted the Bench to closely examine the purpose behind the 1993 policy.

“This is (OM) basically is for the benefit of the women. If she is fit enough to undertake the training, why should it come against her?” Justice Misra asked Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Kaushik, appearing for Centre.

Noting that Sengar had delivered her child nearly nine months before the commencement of Phase-II training, the judge questioned why the policy should automatically disentitle her from participating despite her claim of being fit.

“The petitioner delivered a child on 20.9.2025, the training was to commence on 22.6.26. Nine months virtually. 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,” he added.