Most Read
Most Commented
mk-logo
News
Court set to deliver judgment in Indira Gandhi case this month

After more than a year, the Federal Court is to deliver its judgment in the highly-charged religious custody case involving kindergarten teacher M Indira Gandhi and her former husband K Pathmanathan @ Mohd Ridhuan Abdullah on Jan 29.

Indira's lawyer, Ipoh Barat MP M Kulasegaran, confirmed that his client on Tuesday received a letter from the Federal Court registrar on the impending decision.

“Yes the decision will be delivered on Jan 29,” Kulasegaran told Malaysiakini.

Indira Gandhi’s case has attracted widespread attention, with Ridhuan allegedly running away with their youngest child Prasana Diksa in 2009, after converting all three of their children to Islam without their mother’s consent.

The whereabouts of Ridhuan and Prasana remain unknown, despite a court order ordering the inspector-general of police to arrest Ridhuan.

The Federal Court reserved its judgment in the case after hearing submissions on the matter in November 2016.

Indira Gandhi's lawyers want the apex court to re-visit the R Subashini vs T Saravanan case, where a three-member Federal Court panel decided that the word 'parent' should be interpreted in the Federal Constitution in the singular sense.

The lawyers want it to be interpreted in the plural sense, meaning that the conversion of a child to another religion would require the permission of both parents.

The Federal Court in Subashini's case in 2007 had ruled that any one parent had the right to convert a child.

Federal Court judge Justice Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman had said the word 'parent' in Article 12(4) of the constitution, which states that the religion of a person under the age of 18 years should be decided by his parent or guardian, and meant a single parent.

However, lawyer Fahri Azat for Indira Gandhi had said the definition of 'parent' to mean either a father or mother was inconsistent with the Federal Constitution with regard to Article 12 (4), Article 160 and the 11th Schedule, which defined that a word that is singular in the constitution includes the plural and words in the plural include the singular.

“Hence the word 'parent' should be defined as including both the father and mother and not father or mother,” Fahri had said.

However, senior federal counsel Arik Sanusi Yeop Johari told the apex court that the word 'parent' should be interpreted in the singular.

The Indira Gandhi and S Deepa cases have also led to calls for an amendment to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 but the subsequent amendment fell short of expectations when made.

ADS