It was a pre-New Year's reunion dinner of my old posse, consisting of politicians, a former monk-turned-qi-gong instructor, journalists, activists and Debbie the junta-slayer.

By the time dessert arrived, the conversation turned, predictably, to the politics-of-the-day from the once-mighty's wearing new robes of NGO activism to the now-mighty consolidating their stocks and shares.

Then there was the case of the late Mr M Moorthy, and Colin had the last words.

"What did they (Federal Territory Islamic Religious Affairs Council) win? A body or soul?"

The answer to this question is obvious.

We live in a society where much attention is lavished on form over substance, whether from the pulpits of power or havens of divinity. We are content with presenting and preserving statistics rather than enriching our essence. We are adept in putting on a grand public display of (misplaced) religiosity, such as in the passing of the Islamic Family Bill, than ending the injustices meted to women.

And in the past week, we now exhibit our profound skills in legalised bodysnatching rather than realising compassion the centerpiece of all faiths - to support a devastated family in their hour of need.

It is with the courts that many have found to disappoint the most the Syariah High Court for allowing an ex-parte hearing to proceed without the presence of Moorthy's family, and the Civil High Court for washing their hands off the matter so quickly that it didn't even want to grant a stay order, despite knowing full well the family would appeal the matter.

Moorthy's family banked on the judiciary to adjudicate without fear or favour, but found that justice had taken an extended leave.

Judgments that have come out from the civil courts in recent years, in particular on the issue of jurisdiction of the courts in relation to matters of faith and fundamental liberties, falsely pose as remedies since plaintiffs have found themselves in a non-remedial legal limbo here they are duly informed that the case can't proceed due to 'jurisdiction', they are then (mis)directed to the syariah courts, where they are told the same story, and it's back to square one again.

Is this just? Does justice now have new meaning, symbolised by its absence? Is Article 8 denied to them? Do those affected by such legal rulings have to resort to extra-judiciary redress instead?

The courts are often the last resort in resolving a dispute and we have a bright shiny judicial complex in Putrajaya the Palace of Justice to show and tell but we do expect the emphasis to lean heavily on 'Justice' and not 'Palace'. Independence of the judiciary does not refer only to freedom from executive stranglehold, but a state of being where judges must rule over and above their private bias and personal beliefs, or even against the grain of a sensitive majoritarian viewpoint, in order to give meaning to the responsibilities that they have been entrusted with. If one finds it hard to comply, then the time-honoured way out is to recuse himself or herself.

Constitution not the problem

While the questions below have been asked ad nauseam, they bear repeating until those who sit inside the Palace of Justice open their ears and hear them for what they are and what they represent.

Where can Mrs Kaliammal Sinnasamy and her nine-year old daughter go now?

Who is the authority to hear the case of Mrs Kaliammal Sinnasamy?

Where is justice for Mrs Kaliammal Sinnasamy and her daughter?

There is currently a clamour for a constitutional amendment of Article 121 (1A) and this should be viewed with caution. While it is understandable that proponents of this proposed amendment want clarity in this matter, the consequence in effect is an unwarranted and false recognition of recent rulings that civil courts have no jurisdiction over the syariah courts the latter in fact has narrow and limited jurisdiction as stated in List II of the Ninth Schedule.

The problem lies not with the federal constitution but with those who, for reasons best known to themselves, fail to interpret the constitution with courage, in the interest of justice, and to invoke the spirit and rationale of earlier precedents set by the judiciary.

Amidst this conundrum, more legal wranglings, and even more political and religious posturing, there is thankfully only one thing we can be certain of.

Only Mr Moorthy knows with whom he has entrusted his soul to. May he rest in peace.