Supreme Court Reviews FGM in Dawoodi Bohra Community – Sabarimala Reference & Articles 25, 26

Overview The Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday linking petitions against FGM with the ongoing Sabarimala reference . The bench examined whether the practice, prevalent in the Dawoodi Bohra community, can be protected under Article 25 and Article 26 . Key Developments Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasized that health considerations alone may suffice to curb the practice under Article 25 . Senior Advocate Siddharth Lutha highlighted that FGM is performed on girls as young as seven, causing irreversible loss of at least 10,000 nerve endings and affecting sexual, reproductive and emotional health. The bench noted that the practice also violates the principle of bodily autonomy and therefore falls foul of the constitutional limitations. Justice BV Nagarathna pointed out that the practice can be struck down on the ground of morality under Article 25 . Advocate Nizam Pasha contested the claim of excommunication, arguing that non‑adherence carries no worldly sanction, though spiritual consequences may be perceived. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah warned against equating FGM with male circumcision, stressing the distinct public‑health implications. Important Facts • The procedure involves removal of the clitoral prepuce, termed “hoodectomy” by some practitioners, leading to permanent loss of sensory tissue. • Over 59 countries have enacted bans on FGM, reflecting a global consensus on its violation of human rights. • The petitioners argue that the practice is not an essential religious rite and therefore cannot be shielded by the protection granted under Article 26 . UPSC Relevance The case illustrates the delicate balance between freedom of religion and other fundamental rights such as health, gender equality and bodily integrity. It underscores the judiciary's role in interpreting constitutional provisions when cultural practices clash with modern human‑rights standards. Aspirants should note the jurisprudential test of "essential religious practice" and the permissible restrictions on religious freedom (public order, morality, health) – a recurring theme in GS2 (Polity) and GS4 (Ethics) papers. Way Forward The bench is likely to examine whether the practice can be classified as "essential" and whether it infringes on the rights of minors who cannot give consent. A definitive ruling could pave the way for legislative action or stricter enforcement of existing criminal provisions against bodily harm. For UPSC preparation, monitor subsequent judgments and any parliamentary response, as they will shape future discourse on religious freedom versus individual rights.