Mapping Legal Landscapes: International and Domestic Laws Addressing Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C)

Upali Sarkar
Research Intern, Jindal Centre for the Global South
O.P. Jindal Global University, India

While the global movement to endFemale Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) has gained significantmomentum, much of the discourse remains concentrated on Africa, where the practice is most prevalent and- deeply rooted in history. However, labelling FGM/C as an “African Issue” overlooks its transnational presence. FGM/C is not confined to a single continent; it is spread through migration and diaspora communities across the globe.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. FGM is a culturally entrenched practice predominantly performed on young girls ranging between infancy to 15 years of age. Despite widespread condemnation, according to WHO reports, more than 230 million women have undergone some form of FGM.  Although prevalence rates are declining, the absolute number of cases continues to rise due to global population growth, there has been an increase in actual cases due to the rise in population worldwide.

In 1997, to assess the severity and health risks associated with the practice, WHO categorised FGM into four broad types. The severity of each case was assessed based on the degree of tissue damage or severance. The four major types of FGM, and their subtypes, are: Type I- (Clitoridectomy) Type II- (Excision) Type III- (Infibulation) Type IV- (Other). These categories reflect varying degrees of tissues removal, as well as the diverse cultural justifications and practices associated with FGM.

The type of FGM/C practiced varies widely by region, posing a barrier to its universal prohibition. Proponents of “milder” forms, particularly communities that follow type IV involving symbolic nicking or pricking, argue that it constitutes mere “ritual scraping” and should not be compared with more extensive mutilation like Type II and III.

Prevalence in South Asia
In the context of South Asia the historical and cultural backing of FGM/C is limited and highly specific. Unlike in several parts of Africa and West Asia, FGM/C does not constitute a national custom. In this region FGM/C is predominantly practiced by The Dawoodi Bohra, a Shia Muslim sect, primarily located in Pakistan and India along with other scattered minorities, like the Sheedis, in parts of Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Enforcement within the Bohra community is common, as adherence to FGM/C is considered a religious and community obligation.  Within these communities, the procedures performed are almost exclusively categorized as Type I or Type IV. This specific typology is a crucial role in the regional dynamics. The perception of these forms as “less severe” contributes to the secrecy around the practice and is defended as a minor cultural ritual. The lack of reliable data is perpetuated by a cycle of secrecy and social coercion, thereby preventing accurate understanding of its scale.  While​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌ comprehensive prevalence statistics are still a matter of debate, recent advocacy—like legal petitions and media campaigns by the ‘WeSpeakOut’ network as well as similar groups in India and the region—has been breaking the silence and calling for ​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌accountability.

Domestic Legal Frameworks
India: FGM/C is potentially prosecutable under several general provisions in the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Depending on the severity of injury FGM/C may be interpreted as “hurt” under Section 114 or “grievous hurt” under Section 116-117. More importantly, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, treats it as a form of sexual assault against children, carrying stricter penalties.

Pakistan: Like India, the practice can be prosecuted under The Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and various provincial protection laws. The PPC serves as primary legislation, with Section 328A addressing “cruelty to a child” and Section 332-337 covering “hurt’ and bodily injuries applicable to FGM/C cases. Provincial laws in Sindh, Baluchistan, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa offer complementary protections through domestic violence acts that recognize gender-based violence.

Bangladesh: In addition to the Penal Code of 1860 the Children Act of 2013 provides protections against physical and mental violence towards children. However, due to the lack of recognition of FGM/C enforcement remains dependent on judicial interpretation and there are no documented cases of prosecution.

Sri Lanka: There are no official government policies, ministerial circular addressing FGM/C. Unlike its neighbouring countries, the Sri Lankan Government has not adopted any administrative measures within its healthcare system or legal framework.

Maldives: Despites the Government’s 2021 promise to criminalise FGM/C on the advice of the United Nations’ Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) no law has yet been enacted. Although women’s rights groups have conducted sustained advocacy campaigns, no laws have been enacted to date to fulfil the government’s commitment,

The absence of legal recognition or criminalization of FGM/C in the Maldives and Sri Lanka primarily stems from political caution rather than the lack of data. Both nations possess sufficient awareness about FGM/C. Nevertheless reluctance remains due to political issue such as opposition from conservative religious groups and the ceasing of support for the continuation of cultural practices that have been there for a long ​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌time.

Across the south Asian region, there exists a significant lacuna within the domestic legal frameworks, as no specific law, legal provision or definitions explicitly address to FGM/C. This absence constitutes a serious shortcoming and hinders effective enforcement mechanism aimed protection of rights of women and girls. The absence of any formal legal challenge to the practice further reinforces the systemic neglect of FGM/C within the region’s legal and judicial mechanism.

Commitment to International Law 

The global effort to eradicate FGM/C is rooted in International Human Rights Law, primarily under the framework addressing gender-based violence and discrimination. Two key instruments in this global effort are the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

CEDAW, often described as the “Bill of Rights for Women”, does not explicitly mention FGM/C but contains provisions which have been interpreted to prohibit the practice. Article 2 requires states to pursue policies to eliminate any form of discrimination. Article 5 obligates states to “modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women to eliminate practices based on the idea of inferiority or superiority of either sexes”. The CEDAW Committee maintains that this article holds states accountable for taking effective measures to eradicate FGM/C. By ratifying CEDAW, a state voluntarily accepts the legal obligation to work strategically against FGM/C as a form of discrimination. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development provides a more robust political framework by explicitly calling states to eliminate all “harmful practices and female genital mutilation”. This inclusion places FGM/C within the global development agenda making its elimination a target for the international community by 2030. In essence, the CEDAW establishes the legal obligation while SDGs provide a time-bound policy goal. 

Despite being signatories to CEDAW and pledging commitment to the 2030 SDG, there is an absence of government efforts to reduce or eliminate FGM/C in the South Asian region. This lack of decisive action can be attributed back to the three critical areas: the failure to enact specific legislation, the complete absence of systematic data and lack of nationally run awareness campaigns. Furthermore, the region is characterised with an enforcement gap, wherein international commitments exist on paper but remain disconnected from domestic implementation. This facilitates a cycle of impunity and silence, leaving the rights of women in practicing communities at risk, highlighting that without political will, international commitments remain a dream.

To bridge the gap between the law and its implementation, it is essential to enforce community conversations and gender justice education to shift deep-seated norms. Explicitly integrating FGM/C elimination into national gender policies and funding grassroots efforts is essential. This multi-level approach is needed to convert the promises on paper into tangible protection and change for girls and women, ensuring their fundamental rights are upheld.

REFERENCES

• THE LAW AND FGC India. (2024). https://www.fgmcri.org/media/uploads/Country%20Research%20and%20Resources/India/india_law_report_v1_(november_2024).pdf
• THE LAW AND FGC Pakistan. (2024). https://www.fgmcri.org/media/uploads/Country%20Research%20and%20Resources/Pakistan/pakistan_law_report_v1_(november_2024).pdf
• THE LAW AND FGC Sri Lanka. (2024). https://www.fgmcri.org/media/uploads/Country%20Research%20and%20Resources/Sri%20Lanka/sri_lanka_law_report_v1_(november_2024).pdf
• SAHIYO. 2019. “Tracing the Origins of Female Genital Cutting: How It All Started.” SAHIYO. January 11, 2019. https://sahiyo.com/2018/07/21/tracing-the-origins-of-female-genital-cutting-how-it-all-started/.
• The Dawoodi Bohras. 2022. “About the Bohras – the Dawoodi Bohras.” December 13, 2022. https://www.thedawoodibohras.com/about-the-bohras/#intro.
• World Health Organization. “Female Genital Mutilation.” World Health Organization. February 5, 2024. Accessed February 15, 2024. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation.
• World Health Organization. “Types of Female Genital Mutilation.” n.d. https://www.who.int/teams/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-research-(srh)/areas-of-work/female-genital-mutilation/types-of-female-genital-mutilation.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author (s). They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Jindal Centre for the Global South or its members.