Indira Gandhi files to nullify 8 states’ unilateral conversion laws

 

Hindu mother M Indira Gandhi has gone to the civil court to strike down the unilateral conversion laws of eight states in Malaysia.

The kindergarten teacher and 13 other plaintiffs filed the originating summons at the Kuala Lumpur High Court on March 3.

The plaintiffs seek to rely on the landmark 2018 apex court ruling linked to the case of Indira’s Muslim convert ex-husband, who unilaterally converted their three children without her knowledge and consent.

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. - Mkini