Female genital mutilation causes harm, criminal offense under Pocso: Bohra women in SC

New Delhi: A Dawoodi Bohra Muslim woman on Thursday questioned the sectarian practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) and said the ritual causes physical harm and irreversible physical and mental trauma to the minor girl, which violates her health and dignity and constitutes an offense under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act (Pocso). Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra of Masooma Ranalvi told a nine-judge bench headed by CJI Surya Kant that the FGM ritual was performed on a seven-year-old girl and therefore, there was no doubt that the act was consensual and her parents could not protest as it might attract the wrath of the religious leaders of the community who might excommunicate them. Fear of excommunication, including social boycott and the severing of all economic and social ties with other members of the community, has forcibly suppressed protests against the ritual, Lutra said. A bench comprising CJI Kant, Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, A Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, AG Masih, PB Varale, R Mahadevan and J Bagchi said individual cases of excommunication can be challenged in civil courts but doubted whether excommunications used for religious reasons to keep the sect intact can be challenged in courts. Judge Budge expressed surprise that the government had not yet enacted a law banning female genital mutilation, a practice that causes injuries to vital parts of young girls, while the government has the constitutional mandate to introduce social and religious reforms through legislation. “If a child is subjected to physical pain, physical alteration, forced participation or mental anguish in the name of religious observance, then the issue ceases to be one of protected religious autonomy and enters the realm of constitutional and criminal review,” Lutra said.” “No sect can claim constitutional protection for practices that cause harm to minors whose parents and their practices follow that religious sect and who may be the perpetrators or accomplices of the harm. Judicial intervention in such cases is not an interference with religion but the enforcement of the constitutional obligation to protect the dignity, physical integrity and future of every child,” Lutra said.