Dec 15 hearing for Indira Gandhi's suit against police, govt
M Indira Gandhi’s lawsuit over the authorities’ alleged failure to arrest her Muslim convert former husband and recover their daughter Prasana Diksa will be heard on Dec 15.
This followed on the heels of the Kuala Lumpur High Court this morning dismissing the police and the government’s application to strike out the kindergarten teacher’s legal action.
When contacted today, her counsel Rajesh Nagarajan...
M Indira Gandhi’s lawsuit over the authorities’ alleged failure to arrest her Muslim convert former husband and recover their daughter Prasana Diksa will be heard on Dec 15.
This followed on the heels of the Kuala Lumpur High Court this morning dismissing the police and the government’s application to strike out the kindergarten teacher’s legal action.
When contacted today, her counsel Rajesh Nagarajan confirmed the decision by judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali.
“The full hearing of the suit will be on Dec 25 this year,” the lawyer said.
The Indira Gandhi Action Team (Ingat) will be holding an online Zoom press conference over the court verdict later today.
Today was set for High Court decision on the striking-out application by the inspector-general of police (IGP), the police force, the Home Ministry, and the government.
The authorities contended that the suit was scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the court process.
On Oct 28 last year, Indira (above) 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 were 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 the child to Indira.
Indira claimed 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.
During the online press conference today, Indira expressed gratitude to the High Court ruling, describing today as a great day.
“I am still shaking due to the current news (of the court allowing her suit to go for full hearing on Dec 15).
“It is truly another victory, and at least this time, I hope that justice will prevail,” she said.
In the same online press briefing, her lawyer Rajesh Nagarajan explained that the High Court ruled that her lawsuit raises multiple issues that need to be fully explored in full hearing of said suit.
“The High Court ruled that in this is a matter of merit and it is not frivolous, vexatious, and it (suit) should be ventilated in court, with witnesses and documents present, so that the matter can be disposed of judiciously, so that justice can be done for all parties,” the legal counsel said.
Rajesh said that the court had also ordered the defendants to pay RM4,000 costs to Indira over the unsuccessful striking-out bid.
Meanwhile, the lawyer added that the High Court also partly allowed their application to compel the IGP to answer a formal set of questions linked to the suit.
Rajesh said that the court has directed the top cop to answer by Aug 16 the set of questions related to police efforts to locate and arrest Riduan and the failure to abide by a court order to return Prasana to Indira.
The lawyer explained that the court did not allow their application to compel the IGP to answer a set of questions related to police efforts to track down and recover Prasana.
“For the interrogatories that were allowed, the court directed the IGP to put in an answer by Aug 16 (this year),” Rajesh said.
Under civil litigation, interrogatories are a formal set of written questions required to be answered by the defendant to help clarify matters of fact and determine in advance the facts to be presented in a trial.
It was previously reported that Indira’s legal team would be filing an application to compel the top cop to answer the interrogatories, following his alleged refusal to answer them.
The lawyer added that the court today also awarded Indira RM1,000 costs, in relation to the court partly allowing the application to compel the IGP to answer the interrogatories.
