SC scoffs at Bohra claims on genital mutilation

The Supreme Court on Monday spoke out again on another religious practice violative of woman’s bodily integrity and dignity --the practice of female genital mutilation, wondering if it can hold it as essential religious practice only because it has been practiced by a community for over 1,400 years.

Arguing for the Dawoodi Bohra community, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said the practice dated back to the 10th century and still continued. Bohra women were 100% literate yet they accept the practice, he said. He also said the practice doesn’t discriminate between the men and the women. Both have to undergo the same practice, he said.

The men also have to go through a similar practice, he said, in his bid to point out that there was no discrimination against the women as such in the religion. Girls above the age of seven years have to go through this process.


In his opening remarks defending the practice, which has been challenged as against the concept of gender quality guaranteed by the Constitution, Singhvi argued that the practice was being followed for years and had been followed continuously.

He argued that it cannot be tested as per modern-day morality. In this context, he referred to the practice of sati which was followed by Hindu women in the past. “I am only showing that it is hoary and continuous,” he said.

The CJI led three-judge bench prima facie rejected his arguments which among other things justified the practice as “good for husbands”. “Good for husbands may mean male chauvinism,” the CJI said. “We have to go by constitutional morality,” he said.

Justice DY Chandrachud, who is also part of the bench alongside Justice AM Khanwilkar, wondered how this derogatory practice could still be practiced when the Constitution enjoins every citizen to abhor religious practices derogatory to the dignity of women.

It is a fundamental duty to do so, he said.

The CJI demanded to know of Singhvi whether religion should remain fixed. “Shall we remain fixed or go ahead?,” he sought to know. The court will continue hearing arguments on the case next week.

It is hearing several petitions seeking a ban on the practice. However, an association, claiming to represent the women of the community, is opposing any ban on the practice.