Female Genital Mutilation Debate in India

On July 9, 2018, the Supreme Court of India began hearing the case against Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).^[1] It all began when a human rights advocate, Sunita Tiwari, along with survivors of the practice, most notably Masooma Ranalvi, founder of the FGM survivor-led organisation WeSpeakout, and human rights activists, filed a writ petition^[2]against the practice in the Supreme Court of India, urging the court to declare it unconstitutional, and to direct the government to enact a specific anti-FGM law. The petition sought a complete ban on the practice of khatna and termed it a grave violation of the rights of children.

The petition is opposed by the Dawoodi Bohra Women’s Association for Religious Freedom (DBWRF), a group that started in 2017 by a group of Dawoodi Bohra women to protect the beliefs, culture, customs and religious rights of the Dawoodi Bohra Women.

Since 2018, the case has followed a complex legal journey, navigating many nuances that it carries. In 2018, a three-judge bench led by the then-Chief Justice of India, Deepak Misra, observed that bodily integrity cannot be violated in the name of religion. However, given the stark religious implications of the case, it was then referred to a five-judge constitution bench. In April 2026, a nine-judge constitution bench began hearing the matter again.

This article reviews the position from a feminist legal perspective by assessing the petitioners’ arguments that the practice constitutes a violation of fundamental rights, and the arguments advanced by the opponents on the process being an essential religious practice protected by the constitution, and that the practice of Khatna is different from the severe forms of mutilation. 

What is Khatna or Female Genital Mutilation:

At the 41^st session of the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review in Geneva, human rights records of 14 states, including India, were being examined, and the diplomatic mission of the Central American country, Costa Rica, recommended that the Indian government criminalise as well as formulate a national plan to eradicate Female Genital Mutilation. The World Health Organisation (WHO) defined^[3] FGM as all procedures that involve partial or total removal of external female genitalia or other injuries to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

In India, khatna or khafz is practised most prominently by the Dawoodi Bohra community, which is a sect within the Shia sect of Islam. The practice entails the removal of either one part of or the entire clitoral hood, and is categorised under Type 1a and, in some cases, Type 1b of the comprehensive definition of FGM,^[4] given by WHO. Many women from the community      have spoken out against the practice, which is usually carried out on girls, who are therefore not of age to consent, and now it is on the apex court of the country to determine the constitutionality of the practice.^[5]      

FGM predates the religion of Islam ( it is said to date back up to 1,400 years), and as per historical research, none of the religious sects prescribes it. Its origins are linked to Egypt and Yemen, and the practice later spread to other regions, including India, and currently is documented in over 90 countries across Africa, Asia, the Middle East and among migrant communities in the West.^[6] Historically, in the trading communities like the Bohras, the practice was used to keep women ‘in check’ and ensure chastity when men travelled for long periods in search of work. It was used as a tool of social compliance.

     The primary goal of khatna is said to be to curb a woman’s sexual drive to maintain pre-marital chastity, by removing or nicking the clitoral hood, thus ensuring that sexual pleasure is reduced or eliminated. This also effectively treats women as mere conduits of pleasure for men, and for reproduction, rather than as individuals with sexual autonomy. In other reports, it was also said to make women more desirable and pleasurable to the husband, which further narrows their role as objects for male pleasure.^[7] By labelling a girl’s clitoris as haram ni boti (sinful lump of flesh), the practice enforces a narrative of inherent female impurity that must be cleansed through the painful and invasive method of mutilation.^[8]

Constitutional Debate Surrounding FGM: For and Against

The debate surrounding khatna in India is primarily about individual fundamental rights, and the collective right to religious freedom enshrined under the Indian constitution^[9]. It is argued that FGM violates the fundamental right to privacy, autonomy, equality and bodily integrity.

The practice violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which enshrines the right to bodily integrity and autonomy. The right to privacy has been recognised as a fundamental right under this article following the landmark case of K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017)^[10]. The practice of Khatna is non-consensual in nature by the very fact that it is practised on minor girls, robbing them of the opportunity to make a decision about a process that is highly traumatic with lifelong consequences. Petitioners have argued that since the practice in itself is very invasive and irreversible, it violates the right to sovereignty over one’s body and robs the victim of bodily autonomy^[11]. It also takes away the decisional autonomy of a person for their sexual and reproductive behaviours.

The practice is also very dangerous; it leads to health complications such as infections, which are often accompanied by psychological harm. In a report, around 75% of the families have done this to their daughters, and about 33% of the women who underwent khatna claimed that it had a detrimental impact on their sexual lives; they did not experience pleasure, and in many cases, the intercourse proved to be very painful^[12]. It is also possible that due to the significant taboo and shame associated with FGM that many victims have not come forward or taken part in such surveys and so the figures may be much more severe.

The practice is often compared to male circumcision by the perpetrators. They say that under Islamic faith, everyone must undergo the practice, and this selective ban of khatna would      violate the principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, if banned for women. However, the petitioners maintained that the practice has different aims for both men and women; it is to control women’s sexuality and places an unequal burden on women solely on the basis of sex. Further, under article 15(3) (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth), the state is allowed to make special provisions for the safety of women and children, and the ban on FGM will inevitably protect young girls from such serious harm^[13].

The proponents of the practice and, in this case, the respondents, DBWRF, have maintained that Khatna constitutes an essential religious practice of the sect and is protected under Articles 25 (Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion), and 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs) of the Constitution. The Dawoodi Bohra community defended the practice, suggesting that it is in the Syedna’s mandate, is a mandatory sacral duty, and also a necessary step for achieving spiritual and physical purity.      

What is The Essential Religious Practice Test?

The Essential Religious Practice (ERP) Test maintains that a religious practice will only be protected by the judicial mandate if it is essential to the religion. It must be mandated      by the primary sources of that religion^[14]. It must also have a universal consistency, meaning the practice has to be undertaken by the religious diaspora throughout the world, and if it has been abandoned by other countries, then it would cease to be an ERP.

Even if the practice passes the ERP test, exceptions under Articles 25 and 26 protect religious freedoms. On the grounds of public order, morality and health, the practice can be curtailed. In this case, FGM pre-dates the religion and may not be considered essential to the faith. Further, the concept of constitutional morality, which is an overarching principle, is different from popular or societal morality, and it has been consistently maintained that if a religious practice intrudes into the bodily autonomy of individuals, then limitations can be imposed on it^[15]. It also asserts that the freedom of religion must yield to foundational principles of the constitution, meaning liberty, fraternity and justice; it cannot go beyond gender justice and non-discrimination^[16].

The practice of FGM has many immediate and long-term physical and psychological health risks and effects.^[17] It is typically performed on young girls^[18], often by non-medical practitioners and in unhygienic conditions, thus increasing the chances of infection.^[19] Since anaesthesia is rarely used, victims suffer extreme pain and physical shock, and it also causes excessive bleeding in many cases, and may even lead to death.^[20] Survivors often endure lifelong physical impairments^[21] that trouble their day-to-day lives. They are more prone to many vaginal issues, painful urination, burning and incontinence. As the practice is performed to curb female sexuality, the survivors report low libido, inability to achieve orgasm, and painful sexual intercourse^[22]. It also leads to painful childbirth, postpartum haemorrhage, and prolonged labour.

The psychological impact of FGM is described as a persistent emotional and mental scar, leading to post-traumatic stress disorder, characterised by depression, helplessness, low self-esteem and more.

Comparative Laws    

In India, the practice remains prevalent without any comprehensive legislation to tackle it, and the case is still pending before the apex court. Many European and African countries have already criminalised FGM by either making special laws or incorporating provisions in their existing laws, such as the UK with the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, Ireland with     the Criminal Justice (Female Genital Mutilation) Act 2012, and Kenya with the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 2011. The United Nations General Assembly also adopted a unanimous resolution in 2012, urging a worldwide ban on FGM, and classified it as a gross violation of human rights^[23].

In addition, there are many programmes around the world to support the survivors of FGM and for their rehabilitation, which can also be taken into consideration.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the practice of FGM deprives girls and women of their decisional autonomy, further aggravating gender stereotypes. It aims to control and curb women’s sexuality, turn them into objects for male sexual pleasure, and rob them of their own sexual autonomy and pleasure. It treats them like entities to be controlled in the name of purity, chastity and fidelity rather than seeing them as autonomous individuals. The initiative against FGM is rooted in the reclamation of freedom and individual autonomy. It becomes imperative for the highest court of India to ban this practice which cannot be justified by stating the Essential Religious Practice test, and opposing the interference with a community’s culture and traditions. It is an inherently violent and discriminatory practice against women.

^[1] Supreme Court Observer, 'Sunita Tiwari v Union of India: Ban on Female Genital Mutilation Case Background' (Supreme Court Observer) https://www.scobserver.in/cases/sunita-tiwari-union-of-india-ban-on-female-genital-mutilation-case-background/ accessed 12 June 2026.

^[2] Sunita Tiwari v Union of India (2017) WP 286.

^[3] World Health Organisation, ‘Female Genital Mutilation’ (Fact Sheet, 5 February 2026) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation accessed on 24 June 2026.

^[4] Smruti Sagarika Das, 'Female Genital Mutilation: A Gross Violation of Human Rights' [2024] International Journal of Law Management & Humanities https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/Female-Genital-Mutilation-1.pdf accessed 12 June 2026.

^[5] Shuriah Niazi, 'Against Female Genital Mutilation in India' (The Interpreter, Lowy Institute, 17 July 2018) https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/against-female-genital-mutilation-india accessed 12 June 2026.

^[6] Jewel Llamas, ‘Female Circumcision: The History, the Current Prevalence and the Approach to a Patient’ (2017), University of Virginia School of Medicine.

^[7] CREA, 'FGM in India' (CREA Storytelling Initiative) https://www.creaworld.org/what-we-do/initiatives/storytelling-initiative/first-edition/fgm-in-india.html accessed 12 June 2026.

^[8] Sahiyo, 'Supreme Court’s Latest Judgement Mentioning FGC in India' (Sahiyo Blog) https://sahiyo.org/sahiyo-blog/supreme-courts-latest-judgement-mentioning-fgc-in-india.html accessed 12 June 2026.

^[9] Equality Now, 'FGM in India: The 2026 Supreme Court Hearing Explained' (Equality Now, 11 May 2026) https://equalitynow.org/news/news-and-insights/fgm-in-india-the-2026-supreme-court-hearing-explained/ accessed 12 June 2026.

^[10] Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) & anr v Union of India & ors (2017) 10 SCC 1.

^[11] Indira Jaising, 'Written Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner' (Supreme Court Observer, October 2021) https://www.scobserver.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/FGM__Indira_Jaising_.pdf accessed 12 June 2026.

^[12] Dhruv Singhal, 'Examining the Constitutionality of Female Genital Mutilation in India' (Law School Policy Review, 21 December 2022) https://lawschoolpolicyreview.com/2022/12/21/examining-the-constitutionality-of-female-genital-mutilation-in-india/ accessed 12 June 2026.

^[13] LiveLaw News Network, 'Female Genital Mutilation Affects Health; Can’t Be Compared With Circumcision: Supreme Court In Sabarimala Reference Hearing' (LiveLaw, 8 May 2026) https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/female-genital-mutilation-affects-health-cant-be-compared-with-circumcision-supreme-court-in-sabarimala-reference-hearing-533281 accessed 12 June 2026.

^[14] Shardha Rajam, 'The Quest for Taharat: Sunita Tiwari v. Union of India' (SLR Forum, 10 December 2018) https://forum.nls.ac.in/slr-forum-blog/the-quest-for-taharat-sunita-tiwari-v-union-of-india/ accessed 12 June 2026.

^[15] Deeksha Sharma and Kratika Indurkhya, 'Female Genital Mutilation: How Islam and Fundamental Right to Religion Stamp Out and Confute It' (2022) 8(2) NLIU Law Review 90 https://nliulawreview.nliu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Volume-VIII-Issue-II-90-117.pdf accessed 12 June 2026.

^[16] The Wire, '"Robs You of Autonomy Over Your Own Body": Why Female Genital Mutilation is Violative of the Constitution' (The Wire) https://m.thewire.in/article/gender/robs-you-of-autonomy-over-your-own-body-why-female-genital-mutilation-is-violative-of-the-constitution accessed 12 June 2026.

^[17] World Health Organization, 'Health risks of female genital mutilation' https://www.who.int/teams/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-research-(srh)/areas-of-work/female-genital-mutilation/health-risks-of-female-genital-mutilation accessed 24 June 2026.

^[18] United Nations Population Fund, 'Female genital mutilation (FGM) frequently asked questions' https://www.unfpa.org/resources/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-frequently-asked-questions accessed 24 June 2026.

^[19] Eva Ontiveros, 'What is FGM, where does it happen and why?' (BBC News, 6 February 2019) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-47131052 accessed 24 June 2026.

^[20] K Sarayloo, R Latifnejad Roudsari and A Elhadi, 'Health Consequences of the Female Genital Mutilation: A Systematic Review' (2019) 8 Galen Med J e1336.

^[21] D Reisel and SM Creighton, 'Long term health consequences of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)' (2015) 80 Maturitas 48 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2014.10.009.

^[22] ThePrint, 'Bohra Muslim Women, Female Genital Mutilation, Supreme Court' (ThePrint) https://theprint.in/the-fineprint/bohra-muslim-women-female-genital-mutilation-supreme-court/2905410/ accessed 12 June 2026.

^[23] Nagma Parween and Varsha Singh, 'Quest for Women’s Right to Bodily Integrity: Reflections on Recent Judicial Inroads in India' (Economic and Political Weekly Engage) https://www.epw.in/engage/article/quest-womens-right-bodily-integrity-judicial-inroads accessed 12 June 2026.