The Federal Court will allow the outcome of the highly-charged 'bin Abdullah' case to be decided by three of the five judges that heard the National Registration Department's (NRD) appeal in February.

Chief justice Ricard Malanjum, who led the seven-member apex court bench today, said that the three remaining judges who heard the appeal can still deliver a judgement under Section 78(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, which states that if a judge is unable to attend a proceeding for any cause, the proceeding can continue so long as at least two judges of the court remain.

As such, he said, there is no need to hear the case again before another panel.

This pertains to a landmark judgment last year, where the NRD was ordered by the Court of Appeal to change the name of the eight-year-old boy to include his father's name.

The Federal Court bench today also comprised Court of Appeal president Ahmad Ma'arop, Chief judge of Malaya Zaharah Ibrahim, Chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak David Wong Dak Wah, as well as Federal Court judges Balia Yusof Wahi, Alizatul Khair Othman and Mohd Zawawi Mohd Salleh.

The decision was met with no objections from senior federal counsel Suzana Atan, K Shanmuga and Nizam Bashir representing the eight-year-old boy and his parents, nor Sulaiman Abdullah, representing the Johor Islamic Council (Maij).

In February, a five-member Federal Court bench led by then-chief justice Md Raus Sharif reserved judgement in the NRD's appeal. 

The other judges on the bench at the time were Ahmad, Balia, Aziah Ali and Hasan Lah. Raus resigned in July and Hasan retired last month.

It was reported in July that the Federal Court would hear the case de novo, or fresh from the beginning.

At the time, however, Shanmuga said the four remaining judges – after Raus' resignation, but before Hasan's retirement – may have an equal split decision, and hence called for the appeal be heard again.

As Malanjum noted today, Balia had recently been granted a six-month extension, and thus could deliver the decision without a quorum failure. 

In last year's judgment, the court said the NRD was only confined to determining whether the father had fulfilled the requirements under Section 13A(2) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957, and that a 2003 National Fatwa Council edict on the matter did not have the force of law.

The Federal Court decision, when delivered, would not only affect the eight-year-old boy in this case, but would also be binding on Muslim children in a similar situation.

This includes 20 couples whose children were deemed to be born out of wedlock and hence carry the surnames 'bin Abdullah' or 'binti Abdullah' – which some argue would mean that the children would have to carry the stigma of illegitimate birth for the rest of their lives.