Why in the news ?
-
Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said the Constitution does not allow a person to cause injury to another.
-
Female genital mutilation leaves permanent emotional and mental scars in a young girl, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed .
Concept
-
Female genital mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
-
It is also known by other names including ‘cutting’, ‘female circumcision’ and ‘initiation’.
The case
-
The Supreme Court hearing the case of practicing female genital mutilation of minor girls in the Dawoodi Bohra community, saying it violates the bodily “integrity” of a girl child.
-
Earlier Chief Justice Misra had said such practices on children was an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
-
Attorney General had urged the court to issue directions against the practice.
-
Attorney General submitted that female genital mutilation is punished with seven years’ imprisonment.
-
However, the court also hearing an application for impleading filed by the Dawoodi Bohra Women’s Association for Religious Freedom.
-
Justice Chandrachud responded that the court has to test it in the light of constitutional morality.
-
Just because something is “essential”, does not mean it is above constitutional morality, he said.
-
However, senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, appearing for the group, had said “khafz/female circumcision as practised by the Dawoodi Bohra community is not female genital mutilation.”
-
Singhvi said, It was an essential part of their religion and protected under the Constitution under article 25 and 26.
Source
The Hindu.