July 16 decision on police bid to strike out Indira Gandhi’s suit
Indira Gandhi will know on July 16 whether the police and government succeed in striking out her suit over the authorities’ alleged failure to arrest her Muslim convert former husband and recover their daughter Prasana Diksa.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court today set the date to deliver its decision on the striking-out application by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), the police, the Home Ministry and the government against the kindergarten teacher’s suit.
Indira’s counsel Rajesh Nagarajan confirmed the outcome...
Indira Gandhi will know on July 16 whether the police and government succeed in striking out her suit over the authorities’ alleged failure to arrest her Muslim convert former husband and recover their daughter Prasana Diksa.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court today set the date to deliver its decision on the striking-out application by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), the police force, the Home Ministry and the government against the kindergarten teacher’s suit.
Indira’s counsel Rajesh Nagarajan confirmed the outcome through Zoom proceedings before judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali.
The court had fixed today to hear via Zoom submissions by parties over the striking-out application which was filed earlier on Jan 14.
The Indira Gandhi Action Team (Ingat) will hold an online press conference at 2pm this afternoon in relation to the court proceedings.
On Oct 28 last year, Indira filed the suit over the police’s alleged failure to track down her former husband Muhammad Riduan Abdullah, arrest him and recover Prasana from him.
The IGP, the police force, the Home Ministry and the government are named as defendants in the suit.
Prasana was an infant when her father Riduan, previously named K Pathmanathan, reportedly took her away in 2009 after converting to Islam.
Riduan and Indira were later engaged in a tightly-watched interfaith custody battle after he unilaterally converted Prasana and their two other children to Islam.
In 2014, the Ipoh High Court ordered the police to retrieve Prasana from her father. In 2016, the Federal Court ordered the IGP to arrest Riduan.
In 2018, the Federal Court unanimously ruled that unilateral conversions of children were unlawful as such decisions need permission from both parents. The apex court also issued an arrest warrant for Riduan.
According to Indira's lawsuit, the IGP allegedly failed to abide by two orders of the High Court in Ipoh which were issued on May 30, 2014.
The first order was a committal order for Riduan to be jailed for failing to return Prasana to Indira. The second one was a recovery order for the Royal Malaysian Police and the court bailiff to retrieve Prasana from Riduan and return her to Indira.
Indira claimed that the IGP has committed a tort of nonfeasance in public office by failing to arrest Riduan and recover Prasana.
The plaintiff is seeking declarations that the IGP has committed a tort of nonfeasance in public office and that the other three defendants are vicariously liable for the first defendant’s (IGP’s) tort of nonfeasance.
Indira is also seeking general, aggravated and exemplary damages, interest, costs and any other order deemed fit by the court.
'Multiplicity of proceedings'
According to a copy of written submissions by the defendants, they contended that Indira’s suit was "scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or is an abuse of the court process".
They claimed that her current suit amounts to multiplicity of proceedings as she already has a similar legal action pending at the Ipoh High Court.
“As pointed out, the Ipoh High Court is still monitoring the mandamus order issued for the first defendant (IGP) to execute the warrant of committal against Patmanathan (Riduan’s former name before embracing Islam) under the plaintiff’s judicial review application.
“Therefore, the remedy sought in this action should be made in the judicial review proceeding (before the Ipoh High Court).
“Hence, we submit that the plaintiff had wrongly instituted this action through writ when at the same time the execution of the mandamus order is still being supervised by the Ipoh High Court and thus the plaintiff’s action is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or is an abuse of court’s process,” the defendants claimed.
However, through Indira’s written submission, the plaintiff countered that the current suit before the Kuala Lumpur High Court differs from the one before the Ipoh High Court due to different remedies sought.
The plaintiff contended that this is due to the current suit seeking remedies for the defendants’ alleged failure to abide by the Ipoh High Court order for Riduan to be imprisoned over contempt of court and for the police to recover Prasana.
“The plaintiff had claimed for damages for its suffering due to the defendants’ acts of nonfeasance. The remedy sought by the plaintiff differ from the judicial review proceedings,” the plaintiff claimed.
The plaintiff also contended that the present suit is a fresh claim seeking reliefs that have not been awarded in the other legal action before the Ipoh High Court.
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.