CONFLICT BETWEEN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM & THE TIGHT TO LIFE

Why In News?

The Supreme Court of India is currently hearing a landmark case before a nine-judge bench on the constitutionality of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), a practice prevalent in sections of the Dawoodi Bohra community.

Religious Freedom vs. Right to Life: Core Constitutional Debate

Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.

Article 26 allows religious denominations to manage their own affairs. However, these rights are not absolute.

FGM is not explicitly mentioned in Islamic scriptures and is widely viewed as a socio-cultural custom rather than an essential religious practice.

FGM involves permanent alteration of the body, potential long-term suffering, and in extreme cases, risk to life.

Key Arguments Against Constitutional Protection for FGM

• Not an Essential Religious Practice: Claims by some respondents that FGM is integral to the Dawoodi Bohra faith lack scriptural backing and are contested even within the community.
• Violation of Bodily Integrity: The procedure causes irreversible harm and long-term physical and psychological consequences, directly infringing on the right to health and dignity.
• Irrelevance of Consent: Particularly for minors, consent cannot validate a practice that amounts to grievous hurt.
• Public Health and Morality: The Constitution subjects religious freedom to considerations of health and public morality, both of which are compromised by FGM.

Implications for Indian Society and Judiciary

The ongoing case tests the judiciary’s role in balancing cultural pluralism with constitutional values of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination. An explicit ruling against FGM would:

• Strengthen protections for girl children across communities.
• Reinforce the principle that harmful practices cannot hide behind religious freedom.
• Align domestic law with global standards on gender-based violence.
• Send a clear message that the right to life and bodily autonomy take precedence over contested religious customs.

Way Forward

• The nine-judge bench should clearly delink the constitutionality of FGM from broader religious freedom claims and declare it impermissible under the Constitution.
• Enact a specific central legislation banning FGM to remove any ambiguity and strengthen enforcement mechanisms.
• Promote community awareness and dialogue within affected groups to encourage voluntary abandonment of the practice through education and social reform.
• Strengthen implementation of existing laws (IPC and POCSO) with better reporting mechanisms, sensitisation of law enforcement, and support for survivors.

Conclusion

The collision between religious freedom and the right to life in the context of Female Genital Mutilation presents a critical test for India’s constitutional framework.

Source: Indian Express