Unilateral conversion laws: Two Islamic councils allowed to intervene

The civil court has allowed the Federal Territory Islamic Religious Council (MAIWP) and the Johor Islamic Religious Council (MAINJ) to intervene in a legal challenge against seven states’ unilateral conversion laws.

The Kuala Lumpur High Court today greenlit the intervener bids by MAIWP and MAINJ, while dismissing a similar application by Badan Peguam Syarie Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan.

Lawyer Rajesh Nagajaran, who acts for kindergarten teacher M Indira Gandhi and 13 other plaintiffs, confirmed that judge Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid allowed the intervener bids by MAIWP and MAINJ while dismissing the application by Badan Peguam Syarie Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan.

“The court made no order as to costs, with case management now fixed on Nov 20 at 9am,” the counsel told the media after the online civil proceedings.

MAIWP was represented by lawyers Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar, Aidil Khalid, Danial Farhan Zainul Rijal, and Aidil Khalid.

Counsel Ikbal Salam, Rozreen Wan Ramli, Mohd Faizal Ahmad and Mohamed Yasser Mohd Yasin appeared on behalf of MAINJ.

Landmark ruling

Under civil law, a party may apply to intervene if said party may be affected by the potential outcome of the case or even if not affected, but the party still has valid interest in the outcome of the matter.

On March 3, Indira Gandhi and the 13 other plaintiffs filed a civil court bid to strike down the unilateral conversion laws of seven states, including that of the Federal Territories.

Through the civil challenge, the 14 plaintiffs seek to rely on the landmark 2018 Court of Appeal ruling linked to the case of Indira’s Muslim convert ex-husband, who unilaterally converted their three children without her knowledge and consent.

The legal action seeks a court declaration to nullify the unilateral conversion laws contained in the state enactments of the Federal Territories, as well as Perlis, Kedah, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Perak, and Johor.

Besides Indira, 48, the other 13 plaintiffs are Malaysia Hindu Sangam, its former chairperson S Mohan, Indira Gandhi Action Team chairperson Arun Dorasamy, two alleged victims of unilateral conversion, and eight citizens from the states.

The plaintiffs contended that the impugned state enactments are invalid for contravening Articles 12(4) and 75 of the Federal Constitution as well as the 2018 Federal Court ruling regarding unilateral conversion.

They listed the seven state enactments that allegedly contravened the Federal Court ruling over the phrase 'ibu bapa' of Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which the apex court interpreted as 'ibu dan bapa' (mother and father) for the purpose of consent for child religious conversions.

These enactments are Section 117 of the Administration of the Religion Islam (Perlis) Enactment 2006, Section 80 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Kedah) Enactment 2008, Section 105 of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Malacca) Enactment 2002, Section 117 of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 2003, Section 106 of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004, Section 117 of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Johor) Enactment 2003, and the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993.

Mum seeks to cite religious officers for contempt in conversion case

Mother allegedly harassed over unilateral conversion suit

Lawyers: Premature for Maips to assume Loh's children are 'converts'

Will govt amend Constitution to stop unilateral conversion? - Nazri

Single mum intends to challenge children's unilateral conversion