Indira, 13 others fail to strike down unilateral conversion laws in seven states

 

The Kuala Lumpur High Court today dismissed an originating summons filed by M Indira Gandhi and 13 others seeking to strike down unilateral conversion provisions in seven states, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to bring the action.

Delivering her decision online, judge Aliza Sulaiman said the plaintiffs failed to meet the threshold requirement of locus standi and had not demonstrated a genuine interest in obtaining the declarations sought.

She also noted that the case was commenced by way of an originating summons rather than a judicial review challenging legislation or a policy decision, and that only the 13th and 14th plaintiffs had filed affidavits in support of the action.

Aliza said that even if the court were to regard the plaintiffs as public-spirited individuals and associations, it could not conclude that they had a sufficient interest in the matter.

ADS

“The first plaintiff (Indira) is, of course, the central figure in the well-known unilateral conversion litigation in the (Federal Court) Indira Gandhi decision.

“(However) she did not file any affidavit to depose or demonstrate how her interest would be affected if the relief sought is not granted.

Kuala Lumpur court complex

“Whatever grievances the first plaintiff had, have been conclusively and fully dealt with in the Indira Gandhi decision. (Therefore) her interest in this matter is purely academic in nature,” said Aliza, making no order as to costs in this case.

The suit, filed on March 23, 2023, relied on the landmark 2018 Federal Court ruling arising from Indira’s legal battle against her Muslim convert ex-husband, who had unilaterally converted their three children to Islam without her consent.

In the present action, the plaintiffs sought declarations invalidating unilateral conversion provisions in Islamic enactments in the federal territories, Perlis, Kedah, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Perak, and Johor, arguing that they were inconsistent with Articles 12(4) and 75 of the Federal Constitution.

The Federal Territories Islamic Religious Council (Maiwp) and the Johor Islamic Religious Council participated in the proceedings as interveners.

Apart from Indira, the plaintiffs comprised Malaysia Hindu Sangam, its former chairperson S Mohan, Indira Gandhi Action Team chairperson Arun Dorasamy, two individuals who claimed to be victims of unilateral conversion, and eight residents from the affected states.

Plaintiffs lacked sufficient interest

In her judgment, Aliza said there was no evidence showing that the second to fourth plaintiffs were office-bearers or representatives of the religious and community groups they claimed to represent.

She also found no evidence that the sixth to 12th plaintiffs had minor children who could be affected by the impugned provisions.

According to the judge, the only plaintiffs whose affidavits addressed the laws in question were the 13th and 14th plaintiffs, who claimed they had been converted to Islam before the Federal Court’s 2018 decision.

However, Aliza said the pair had not sought to challenge or nullify their own conversions and did not have minor children who could be affected by the operation of the state laws.

“Basically, this is a case where the plaintiffs take the position that the existence of the impugned provisions constitutes a violation of the constitutional provisions as interpreted in the Indira Gandhi decision.

“The evidence simply does not disclose an actual controversy affecting the plaintiffs’ rights,” Aliza said, adding that the constitutionality of a law cannot be challenged collaterally. - Mkini