The National Registration Department (NRD) has yet to file an application for stay on the Court of Appeal's landmark decision to allow a seven-year-old child conceived out of wedlock to bear the father's surname.

Lawyer Nizam Bashir, who represents the family of the child, also said the NRD should be more diplomatic in their approach in handling such matters.

“There is no stay application by the NRD in light of the May 25 decision and the written judgment is out. They have applied an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court," he told Malaysiakini.

Nizam was commenting on the statement by NRD director-general Mohd Yazid Ramli today that the procedure to name a child born out of wedlock will remain the same despite the appellate court's decision.

Yazid said this was due to their application to take the matter to the Federal Court.

The director-general added that NRD's decision not to allow the child conceived out of wedlock not to bear the father's name if they are born less than six months after their parents' marriage was consistent with the decision made by the National Fatwa Committee.

“Hence, we will continue to implement the present status quo in relation to such cases. Any amendment to the present practice would only be considered after the decision is made by the Federal Court,” he said in the statement.

Yesterday, it was reported that a three-member bench of the Court of Appeal had overturned the Kuala Lumpur High Court decision in allowing the affected child to bear the father's surname after both parents made an application.

Justice Abdul Rahman Sebli, who wrote the unanimous decision, had said the jurisdiction of the NRD director-general is a civil one and is confined to determine whether the father had fulfilled the requirements of Section 13A(2) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act (BDRA).

He added that the director-general is not obligated to apply, let alone to be bound by a fatwa issued by a religious body such as the National Fatwa Committee.

“For him (the NRD director-general) to do so would amount to an abrogation of his power under the BDRA and surrendering it to the religious body.

"That would in effect be to take away the statutory right accorded to the father by Section 13A(2) to have his name ascribed as the child's surname in the birth certificate,” the judge said.