FGM inflicts injury, is an offence under Pocso: Bohra woman in SC | India News
New Delhi: A Dawoodi Bohra Muslim woman on Thursday questioned the communal practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) and said the practice causes physical injury and irreparable physical and mental harm to minor girls, a violation of her health and dignity and an offense under the Child Protection Act. Appearing for Masuma Ranalvi, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra told a nine-judge bench headed by CJI Surya Kant that the FGM ceremony is performed on girls as young as seven years old, hence, there was no question of consent to the act, and her parents could not protest as it might invite the wrath of the religious head of their community, who is the former of their community. Fear of excommunication, which ranges from social boycotts to severing all economic and social ties with other members of the community, silences protests against forced rites, Luther said. A bench comprising CJI Kant, Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, A Amanullah, Arvind Kumar, AG Masih, PB Varale, R Mahadevan and J Bagchi said separate cases of expulsion could be challenged in civil courts but expressed doubt whether the ex-communication used to protect the community in the trial of religious laws could be questioned in court. Justice Bagchi expressed surprise that FGM, which causes trauma to a significant proportion of young girls, has not yet been banned by a law enacted by the government, which has a constitutional mandate to initiate social and religious reforms through legislation. Luther said, “Where a child is subjected to physical pain, physical alteration, coercive participation or mental suffering in the name of religious observance, the matter falls within the protected religious autonomy and enters the domain of constitutional and criminal justice.” “No community can claim constitutional protection for a practice that harms minors whose parents and whose actions follow that religious community and may be complicit in criminality or harm. Judicial intervention in such cases is not interference with religion but enforcement of the constitutional duty to protect the dignity, physical integrity and future of every child,” Luth said.
