Court decision on 'Sikh declaration' case set for Oct 24

The Kuala Lumpur High Court has set Oct 24 to decide on the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Council (MAIWP) and the government's attempt to strike out a 29-year-old man’s application to declare himself a Sikh instead of a Muslim.

MAIWP and the government are seeking to toss out the application filed by one Shehzad Malik Sanwar Malik in 2023, where he claimed to have been born to Muslim-professed parents but never practised the religion his whole life and was brought up with Sikhism beliefs instead.

Judge Aliza Sulaiman fixed the date after hearing submissions from all parties this morning.

Counsels Ahmad Kamal Abu Bakar and Arik Zakri Abdul Kadir represented MAIWP, senior federal counsel Zairani Tugiran appeared for the government, while lawyer Rajesh Nagarajan represented Shehzad in today's proceeding.

Earlier, MAIWP and the government submitted that there are proper channels for individuals seeking to renounce Islam and that such a case should be heard before the Syariah Court, as it has the jurisdiction to do so, instead of the case being filed and heard in a civil court.

“He (Shehzad) is asking for this court to declare him a Sikh, which means he must leave Islam. We would argue that the prayers (pleaded in the application) are creatively crafted to go around the very jurisdiction of a Syariah Court.

“It is a case of a Muslim man wanting to leave the religion, but does not want to go to the Syariah Court. We are saying that he should just go to a proper channel.

“There is nothing to stop him (Shehzad) from going to Syariah Court and getting the court to say that he is a Sikh and not a Muslim,” said the counsels.

Rajesh then rebutted by submitting that the case was not about a Muslim man seeking to renounce Islam but a declaration that he is a Sikh man.

He added that there was nothing for Shehzad to renounce, given that the plaintiff had been practising Sikhism his whole life.

“The plaintiff has always stated that he is a Sikh, and continued being raised as a Sikh by his uncle after his mother passed away (in 2007).

“Just because something is stated in your identification card does not make it the truth of the matter. My client has been a victim of not being able to practise the religion he was brought up in.

“It is not for the government to decide whether (an individual) is Muslim or not, as that would be contrary to Article 11 of the Federal Constitution, which is an absolute right that guarantees one’s rights of freedom to profess any religion they want.”

Rajesh further submitted that the civil court does have the jurisdiction to hear the matter, as it touches on one’s constitutional right under Article 11.

Case background

Shehzad filed the case two years ago seeking several courts’ declaration that he is an individual who professed and practised Sikhism instead of Islam willingly, as well as to amend and correct his religious status in the National Registration Department’s record as “Sikh” instead of “Islam”.

He also wants the court to declare that his legal name is Bilawal Singh Bhutter.

Apart from these, he also sought the court’s declaration that he has the constitutional right to profess his religion of choice pursuant to Article 11 and that he is not subjected to Item 1, List II, State List Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.

He also sought costs and other relief deemed fit by the court.

In his supporting affidavits, he claimed that his mother was a Sikh by birth who had reverted to Islam and married his Muslim father from Pakistan on Aug 2, 1993. But his mother raised him as a Sikh.

“At all times, the plaintiff professed and practised Sikhism and not Islam (as) his upbringing at home was carried out on the basis that the plaintiff is a Sikh.

“The plaintiff acknowledges Sikhism as his religion and asserts that he has been educated with the beliefs and doctrines of Sikhism.

“The plaintiff relies on his rights to profess and practice Sikhism, which is a constitutional right conferred by Article 11 of the Constitution, which is a fundamental human right as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 by the United Nations and various other human rights instruments,” the affidavits stated.

‘I am a Sikh’

Shehzad further claimed that he still practises Sikhism, regularly visits Sikh temples with his uncles and family and celebrates all Sikh religious festivals and events.

“I have never willingly professed Islam at any point in time, nor have I ever prayed in accordance with the Muslim faith or visited a mosque. I never celebrated any Muslim festival or adopted any Islamic beliefs.

“I am not an individual willingly professing and practising the religion of Islam.

“Throughout my life, when called upon to make an oral declaration of my religion of choice, I have always answered ‘Sikhism’. I state that my general reputation among my friends and family is that I am a Sikh,” he said.

He said that he has faith in the beliefs and doctrines of Sikhism, and regards Sikhism as his only path to spiritual well-being, peace of mind and personal happiness, in emphasising his intention to maintain his faith and beliefs in Sikhism.

Sikh community small but vital component of society - Sultan Nazrin

Religious groups urge public to stop making jokes about religion

Man seeks court to declare he's Sikh, never been Muslim

Two sisters are Hindu, weren't born Muslim, court rules

Bid to renounce Islam: Civil court denies Eurasian's appeal

Civil court bins woman’s bid to leave Islam, return to Christianity

If bid to leave Islam fails, woman needs to flee M’sia - lawyer argues