FGM causes injuries, it is an offense under POCSO: Bohra woman tells Supreme Court. india news
New Delhi: A Dawoodi Bohra Muslim woman on Thursday questioned the communal practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and said the ritual causes physical injury and irreversible physical and mental trauma to minor girls, which is a violation of their health and dignity and an offense under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act. Appearing for Masuma Ranalvi, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra told a nine-judge bench led by CJI Surya Kant that the ritual of FGM is performed on girls as young as seven years old, hence, there is no question of the act being consensual, and her parents cannot protest as it may incur the wrath of the religious head of the community, who may ostracize them. The fear of ostracism, which ranges from social boycott to breaking of all economic and social ties with other members of the community, forcibly silences protests against the ritual, Luthra said. A bench of CJI Kant, Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundaresh, A Amanullah, Arvind Kumar, AG Masih, PB Varale, R Mahadevan and J Bagchi said individual cases of exclusion can be challenged in civil courts, but doubted whether exclusion used to maintain a sect on religious grounds can be questioned in the court. Justice Bagchi expressed surprise that FGM, which causes injury to the vital organs of young girls, has not yet been legislated by the government, which has the constitutional mandate to bring about social and religious reforms through law. Luthra said, “Where a child is subjected to physical pain, physical alteration, forced participation or mental anguish in the name of religious observance, the case ceases to be one of protected religious autonomy and enters the field of constitutional and criminal scrutiny.” Luthra said, “No sect can claim constitutional protection for a practice that harms minors whose parents and whose actions follow that religious sect may be perpetrators or participants in the harm. Judicial intervention in such cases is not interference in religion but enforcement of the constitutional duty to protect the dignity, physical integrity and future of every child.”
