Kindergarten teacher M Indira Gandhi and 13 others contended that the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Council (MAIWP) has no interest (kepentingan)to intervene in their legal challenge against the validity of the unilateral conversion laws of eight states.
In an affidavit, in reply to MAIWP’s application to be made a party in the civil court challenge, plaintiff and activist Arun Dorasamy contended that this is because the legal action will not affect parents who lawfully converted their children to Islam.
In the filing made at the High Court in Kuala Lumpur on May 19, Arun - whose affidavit was made on behalf of himself as well as Indira (above) and the other 12 plaintiffs - pointed out that the reliefs they seek have nothing to do with MAIWP.
He claimed that MAIWP failed in their intervenor bid to explain how the rights of Muslims in the federal territories would be jeopardised if the plaintiffs succeed in their civil court challenge.
“Parents who register their children (conversion or religious status) legally based on the Federal Constitution need not worry, therefore the prejudice referred to by the proposed intervenor (MAIWP) does not exist,” Arun said in the affidavit sighted by Malaysiakini.
He added that the plaintiffs believe MAIWP’s intervenor application prejudices them as it delayed the hearing of the main civil action involving the issue of the validity of the eight states’ unilateral conversion laws.
It was previously reported that MAIWP sought to intervene in order to safeguard the rights of Muslim parents in the federal territories who converted their children to the faith.
Meanwhile, in MAIWP’s reply to Arun’s affidavit filed on June 2, the Islamic body denied the intervenor bid as a delaying tactic, stressing that the legal action involves its statutory duty to Muslims in the federal territories.
MAIWP also reiterated that it should be allowed to intervene in order to prevent the rights of Muslims in the federal territories from being prejudiced.
In the event the civil court allows MAIWP to intervene in the legal action, then it would be granted the right to file responses against the civil action.
Besides MAIWP, Badan Peguam Syarie Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan has also applied to intervene in the civil action, which was filed on March 3.
The legal action
Through the legal action, Indira, Arun and the 12 other plaintiffs seek to strike down the unilateral conversion laws of eight states, including that of the federal territories.
The plaintiffs seek to rely on the landmark 2018 Federal 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 legal action 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 and Indira Gandhi Action Team chairperson Arun, the other plaintiffs are Malaysia Hindu Sangam, its former chairperson S Mohan, two alleged victims of unilateral conversion, and eight citizens from the states.
The 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.
They listed the eight state enactments that allegedly contravened the Federal Court ruling over the phrase ibu bapa (parents) 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.
The state 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
Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993
When contacted by Malaysiakini, the plaintiffs’ counsel Rajesh Nagarajan confirmed the filing of the affidavit to oppose MAIWP’s intervenor application.
The lawyer added that the civil action is now before judge Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid and that the matter is set for further case management on July 3.
Counsel Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar acted for MAIWP. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.