New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday observed that a woman's bodily integrity cannot be violated in the name of religious practices as it heard a public interest plea seeking a ban on the tradition of female genital mutilation among Dawoodi Bohras.

"Why should the bodily integrity of a woman be subject to some external authority? One's... genitals (are) an extremely private affair," Chief Justice Dipak Misra, head of a bench that included Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, observed.

According to the petitioner, advocate Swapnil Tripathi, khatna or genital mutilation violates the women's fundamental rights to life and equality. Attorney-general K.K Venugopal said the Centre favoured a ban on such traditions.

"Why should anyone have the authority to touch the female's genitals? No one can use religious practices to touch a female's body and violate integrity of her body part," Justice Chandrachud observed.

Told that the girls are subjected to genital mutilation at a very young age, Justice Misra said such a practice would be an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. "Can such a practice be imposed on females?" he said.

Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for the Dawoodi Bohra community, said the tradition had sanction from religious texts.

"It is an essential aspect of Islam and cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny," Singhvi said, offering to quote religious texts to show that the practice had been followed for centuries.

Venugopal said the United Nations opposed female genital mutilation, which had been banned in the US, Britain, Australia, Canada and 27 African countries. The next hearing is on July 16.

The petition has sought a verdict declaring the practice unconstitutional and a non-compoundable and non-bailable offence. It has asked the court to direct the state police chiefs to act against anyone engaging in the practice.

It has argued that while current penal laws allow complaints of grievous hurt or assault to be lodged, they have no provisions dealing with such gender-specific violence.

Also, Section 3 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act bans any sort of penetrative assault using an object, the petitioner has contended.