Everest hero and ex-army commander M Moorthy would not have expected that his death could spark a movement to amend the constitution on the rights of non-Muslims.

Already plans are afoot as lawyers for his wife, S Kaliammal, argued that Article 121(A) of the federal constitution, which separates the jurisdictions of civil and syariah courts, as "unconstitutional".

Whereas Article 8 of the constitution provides for freedom of religion, Article 121(A) effectively locks non-Muslims out of the Syariah Court and prevents them from pursuing their rights through the Islamic legal system, they said.

"There is not even a double standards here. With double standards, at least the other party gets a less favorable deal. But here, one party has got no deal at all, which infringes Article 8 (of the constitution)," said lawyer A Sivanesan ( photo ).

Sivanesan represents Kaliammal in the tussle between Moorthy's family, who insists that the Mt Everest climber died a practicing Hindu, and the Federal Territory Islamic Religious Council, which maintained that he had converted to Islam.

Last Thursday, the Syariah Court, on an application by the council, ruled that Moorthy - who passed away Dec 20 - was a Muslim and should be buried accordingly.

The Kuala Lumpur High Court two days ago ruled it had no jurisdiction to review the Syariah Court's decision.

Article 121 (1A), said High Court judge Mohd Raus Sharif, states that the civil court has no jurisdiction on matters pertaining to Islam and such issues should be handled by the Syariah Court.

Backing sought from politicians

At a press conference held yesterday at his office in Kuala Lumpur with Kaliammal and other family members, Sivanesan said among the first steps to be taken in the campaign "to rescue Article 8" is to call for support from all political parties - both ruling and opposition.

"We will be writing to all political parties to convey to them what has transpired, the agony (Kaliammal) is going through, and what legislators should do, and (for) quick action (to be taken)," said Sivanesan.

"Whenever they are willing to meet us, we are willing to go," he said. "This is not Kaliammal's cause. This is (all) Malaysians' cause. We are not questioning Islam or the rights of Muslims... We are saying non-Muslims should have legal remedy."

Sivanesan said he hoped the next cabinet meeting would see the issue raised by Indian-based party MIC leader S Samy Vellu as the controversy "involves an Indian woman".

In the wake of the High Court decision, non-Muslim interfaith body Malaysian Consultative Council for Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism has urged for changes to the constitution to ensure that non-Muslims' rights are recognised.

Appeal to higher courts

Meanwhile, another lawyer, M Manoharan, said the notice of appeal against the High Court decision had been filed yesterday morning.

Apart from hoping to obtain a date for the hearing as soon as possible, Manoharan said he would like the Court of Appeal to declare outright that Article 121(A) is unconstitutional.

"We wanted to know whether Moorthy really did convert. We went there (the courts) to find out, but the civil court said, 'This is not the place for you to know. You must go to the Syariah Court.' But we cannot go to the Syariah Court," he said.

Reporters were also told that the army's legal advisor, Lieutenant Colonel Zulkarnain Ahmad, had assured the family that he would expedite all benefits, such as pension payments, to which Kaliammal was entitled from her husband's long service in the army.

Sivanesan also said the family was assured that there would be no problems with Kaliammal inheriting from Moorthy despite the court's declaration that he had died a Muslim.

"The court has recognised her as the legal wife. There shouldn't be any complications (on the matter)," he said.