Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
There was a heated and much debated exchange of arguments between Chief Justice Dipak Misra and senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi in a hearing crafted on the challenge against the practice of Female Genital Mutilation followed by the Dawoodi Bohra community. The senior counsel spoke for the community and contended that FGM is different from female circumcision that is actually followed by the community. While the former is brutal and barbaric, the latter is benign.
Dr. Singhvi clearly stood for the practice and defended it on the grounds of faith, justification of origin, continuity and religious texts. Justice D. Y. Chandra HUD however mentioned that the fact that the practice existed in the 10th century does not mean that it is an integral part of the religion. It can just be a part of social diktat. Justice Misra said that any practice that requires protection under article 25 would be tested first in the touchstone of public health and morality. He said that morality means Constitutional morality. Nothing that hurts gender identity or requires women to be appealing to their husbands clearly conforms to male chauvinism. It is against the very essence of dignity.
Dr. Singhvi contended that if male circumcision adheres to Constitutional morality and nothing is questioned against the same then why is the same not prevailing for female circumcision? Among the Hindus even Sati was prevalent. And that was abolished by an act, not at the behest of the judiciary. He argued that the practice is ancient and it is being challenged by a PIL , while 99.9% of the women condone the practice and stand by it. Justice Chandrachud explained that it is the fundamental duty to renounce and forego practices that are derogatory to a woman.
The senior advocated even repeated the 'Taharah' which is one of the seven pillars of the Fatimid school of Islam and requires the performance of circumcision. He quoted that while girls below seven years are not circumcised according to religious texts, uncircumcised women who reached an advanced age must be circumcised then. He said that the practice was not for pleasing the men but for the benefit of the women themselves. He defended the fringe of opinion that claims the practice affords numerous health benefits to women. Dr. Singhvi while concluding also drew the attention of the bench to the portions of the religious texts that holds the circumciser liable for excessive cutting of the genitals.
86540
103860
630
114
59824