KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court has dismissed a lawsuit by M. Indira Gandhi and 13 others in their bid to challenge the validity of state laws relating to unilateral religious conversion.
Justice Aliza Sulaiman, who is now a Court of Appeal judge, said the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the threshold requirement of having locus standi in bringing the legal action.
The judge noted that Indira was a central figure in the 2018 landmark decision by the Federal Court, which declared that the unilateral conversion of her three children was null and void, but she did not file any affidavit to depose or demonstrate how her interest would be affected if the reliefs sought in the present lawsuit were denied.
“Whatever grievances the first plaintiff had have been conclusively and fully dealt with in the (2018) decision. The first plaintiff’s interest in this matter is purely academic in nature,” she said.
The court found no proof that the seven plaintiffs have minor children who may be affected by the impugned provisions.
“Their interests in this matter are purely hypothetical or academic,” the judge said.
The plaintiffs contended that they had “real and genuine interest” in the constitutionality and continued operation of the impugned provisions, which are presently in force and capable of affecting them in the future, but the judge said their claim was not established before the court.
“Even if the bar is lowered and they are taken as simply public-spirited individuals and associations, I am unable to say that they have some interest in the matter.
“The plaintiffs’ application is dismissed with no order as to costs,” she said in the decision here yesterday.
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 other plaintiffs were the Agamam Ani Association, former chairman of the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism S. Mohan, Indira Gandhi Action Team chairman D. Arumugam, and 10 others who claimed they were “victims” of unilateral religious conversion.
In the originating summons, 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 Federal 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.
The Federal Territory Islamic Religious Council and the Johor Islamic Religious Council are interveners in the originating summons.
