The lawsuit 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,
Pahang, Perak, and Johor.
Besides Indira (above), 48, the 13 other plaintiffs are NGOs
Malaysia Hindu Sangam, its former chairperson S Mohan, Indira Gandhi
Action Team chairperson Arun Dorasamy, two alleged victims of unilateral
conversions, and eight citizens from the states.
The two
purported unilateral conversion victims are Aisyah Muhammad Ali, 26, and
Mimi Mastura Abdullah, 33, while the states’ citizens are P Sathesh
Kumar, 45 (Perlis), S Puveneshwaran, 46 (Kedah), A Krishnan, 57
(Malacca), R Sentul Kumaran, 43 (Negeri Sembilan), S Sathy Vel Naidu, 61
(Pahang), M Selvaraj, 69 (Perak), S Sivaprakash, 48 (Johor), and M
Ranjeet Kumar, 44 (Kuala Lumpur).
Indira, 48, and the other
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.
Converted as children
According to a copy of an affidavit in support of the civil action,
Aisyah, who is from Ulu Tiram, Johor, contended that she was nine years
old when she was unilaterally converted to Islam by her father without
her mother’s consent at the Kota Tinggi Islamic Religious Department.
Aisyah
also claimed that Mimi Mastura was unilaterally converted when she was
10 by her mother without her father’s consent at the Johor Bahru Islamic
Religious Office. Aisyah contended that she and Mimi Mastura neither professed nor practised Islam and followed Hinduism instead.
She
referred to the 2018 apex court ruling of M Indira Gandhi V Perak
Islamic Religious Department Director and Others, which ruled in the
affirmative to the question of “Whether the mother and the father (if
both are still surviving) of a child of a civil marriage must consent
before a conversion to Islam can be issued in respect of that child?”
Aisyah then listed the eight 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 103 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Pahang)
Enactment 1991, 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) 1993.
“I have been further
advised that these state enactments dealing with the unilateral
conversion of Islam are unconstitutional and had caused, are causing, or
will cause the violation of the plaintiffs’ rights as well as that of
the children of every non-Muslim citizen whereby their religion may be
changed to Islam,” Aisyah contended.
When contacted, the
plaintiffs’ counsel Rajesh Nagarajan said the legal action is set for
case management before the Kuala Lumpur High Court this morning.
Kilimanjaro : Bravo. Rather than dealing on a piecemeal basis, this is taking the bull by the horns. While Islam comes under the state jurisdictin and has been widely accepted, the thorn is on the conversion cases, particularly conversion of minors.
