Supreme Court FGM की समीक्षा करता है Dawoodi Bohra समुदाय – Sabarimala संदर्भ & Articles 25, 26

<h3>Overview</h3> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and adjudicates disputes (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> heard arguments on Thursday linking petitions against <span class="key-term" data-definition="Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) — practice involving partial or total removal of external female genitalia, recognized as a violation of human rights (GS4: Ethics)">FGM</span> with the ongoing <em>Sabarimala reference</em>. The bench examined whether the practice, prevalent in the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Dawoodi Bohra community — a sub‑sect of Shia Islam in India, known for distinct religious customs (GS1: Society)">Dawoodi Bohra</span> community, can be protected under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Indian Constitution — guarantees freedom of religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span> and <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 of the Indian Constitution — gives religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 26</span>.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li><strong>Justice Joymalya Bagchi</strong> emphasized that health considerations alone may suffice to curb the practice under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Indian Constitution — guarantees freedom of religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span>.</li> <li>Senior Advocate <strong>Siddharth Lutha</strong> highlighted that FGM is performed on girls as young as seven, causing irreversible loss of at least <strong>10,000 nerve endings</strong> and affecting sexual, reproductive and emotional health.</li> <li>The bench noted that the practice also violates the principle of <span class="key-term" data-definition="bodily autonomy — right of individuals to control their own bodies without external coercion (GS4: Ethics)">bodily autonomy</span> and therefore falls foul of the constitutional limitations.</li> <li>Justice BV Nagarathna pointed out that the practice can be struck down on the ground of <em>morality</em> under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Indian Constitution — guarantees freedom of religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span>.</li> <li>Advocate Nizam Pasha contested the claim of excommunication, arguing that non‑adherence carries no worldly sanction, though spiritual consequences may be perceived.</li> <li>Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah warned against equating FGM with male circumcision, stressing the distinct public‑health implications.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>• The procedure involves removal of the clitoral prepuce, termed “hoodectomy” by some practitioners, leading to permanent loss of sensory tissue.<br> • Over <strong>59 countries</strong> have enacted bans on FG