KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court today fixed May 21 to deliver its decision on the originating summons (OS) filed by M. Indira Gandhi (pic) and 13 others challenging the validity of state laws relating to unilateral religious conversion.
Judge Datuk Aliza Sulaiman set the date after hearing submissions from counsel in the case.
"The court has fixed May 21 at 2.30pm for the decision via Zoom,” she said.
Indira and 13 others, as plaintiffs, filed the originating summons in March 2023, primarily to nullify unilateral conversion in six states involving the governments of Johor, Perlis, Melaka, Kedah, Negri Sembilan, Perak and the Federal Territories.
The Federal Territory Islamic Religious Council (MAIWP) and the Johor Islamic Religious Council, meanwhile, are interveners in the OS.
Earlier, counsel Rajesh Nagarajan, representing the plaintiffs, argued that the defendants’ failure to provide any justification highlighted that their state laws allowing unilateral conversion of a child below the age of 18 were inconsistent with Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution and established Federal Court authorities.
Meanwhile, senior federal counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly @ Arwi, appearing for the Federal Territories, submitted that the Federal Court’s 2018 decision in Indira Gandhi could not be regarded as binding authority for the proposition that Section 106 of the Perak Enactment and its inter-state counterpart provisions, including Section 95 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993 [Act 505], are unconstitutional.
"Section 95 of Act 505 is cloaked with a strong presumption of constitutionality. This presumption is based on the recognition that the legislature is deemed to understand the needs of the people,” he said.
Counsel Danial Farhan Zainul Rijal, appearing for MAIWP, contended that the plaintiffs lacked the requisite locus standi to maintain the action because they failed to show any genuine grievance or personal injury.
"Therefore, their invocation of this court’s jurisdiction is not for the genuine purpose of obtaining relief for a wrong done to them, but rather for the collateral purpose of challenging the sanctity of State Enactments and Hukum Syarak (Syariah law) in the abstract," he said.
Another counsel for MAIWP, Arham Rahimy Hariri, argued that the plaintiffs’ challenge was purely academic, as there was no factual matrix linking them to the alleged harm or any adverse effect proven in their affidavits on the impugned provisions, and urged the court to dismiss the OS.
In the OS, the plaintiffs claimed that the state enactments contravened Article 12 (4) of the Federal Constitution, as interpreted in Indira's landmark 2018 case on unilateral conversion.
Article 12(4) states that the religion of a person aged under 18 is to be decided by his "parent or guardian".
In the landmark decision, the apex court ruled that the word "parent” in the article is to be interpreted as "parents” if both are still alive. Therefore, both parents’ permission is needed in conversion cases.
The plaintiffs also said that under Article 75 of the Federal Constitution, federal law prevails over any state law that is inconsistent with it. Accordingly, they argued that state enactments allowing unilateral conversion should be declared void.- Bernama
