Back
2023 MarsdenLR 2865
HIGH COURT MALAYA TAIPING
AZRI AMIN – Appellant
Versus
KETUA PEGAWAI EKSEKUTIF MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM DAN ADAT MELAYU PERAK & ANOR – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: AB-24NCvC-173-09/2022]
The civil courts lack jurisdiction over matters of religious conversion, which must be determined by the Syariah Court, emphasizing the importance of jurisdictional boundaries in religious law cases.
Headnote:(A) Federal Constitution - Articles 3, 11, and 12 - Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam 1992 - Section 98 - Application to strike out originating summons - Court found no reasonable cause of action as the matter fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Syariah Court - The applicant's conversion to Islam as a minor was deemed valid under the law, and his claims were not actionable in civil courts. (Paras 4, 16, 18, 52)
(B) Jurisdiction - Civil courts do not have the jurisdiction to decide on matters relating to conversion to Islam - The validity of the conversion must be determined by the Syariah Court. (Paras 18, 52)
(C) Reasonable Cause of Action - An action must disclose a reasonable cause of action to proceed in court - The applicant's claims were found to be frivolous and an abuse of court process. (Paras 4, 52)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, claiming to be a lifelong Hindu, sought declarations against his conversion to Islam at age 8, asserting it was invalid due to lack of understanding and consent. The court found that the matter should be addressed by the Syariah Court, as the conversion was legally valid.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the originating summons was struck out due to lack of reasonable cause of action and jurisdiction issues, with costs awarded to the respondents.
Issues: The main issues were whether there was a reasonable cause of action, if the action was frivolous, and whether the civil courts had jurisdiction over the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the issue of the applicant's conversion fell solely within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court, and that the civil courts could not entertain such matters.
Result: The originating summons was struck out with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's decision to strike out the os. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. issues to be decided by the court. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. applicable laws regarding conversion. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. facts surrounding the applicant's upbringing and religious practices. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. consequences of being labeled as a muslim. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. grounds for striking out a pleading. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 7. arguments regarding jurisdiction and legal basis. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 8. previous case law supporting the respondents' arguments. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 9. validity of the conversion certificate. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 10. applicant's assertion of rights under the federal constitution. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 11. distinction between professing and practicing religion. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 12. jurisdiction of civil courts over ab initio cases. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 13. definition and implications of 'professing' a religion. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 14. applicant's claim of never having professed islam. (Para 31 , 32) |
| 15. court's findings on the applicant's conversion. (Para 33 , 34) |
| 16. requirements for valid conversion to islam. (Para 35 , 36) |
| 17. court's jurisdiction on conversion validity. (Para 37 , 38) |
| 18. evaluation of conflicting evidence. (Para 39 , 40) |
| 19. court's reasoning on jurisdiction and evidence. (Para 41 , 42) |
| 20. implications of the applicant's previous actions. (Para 43 , 44) |
| 21. jurisdictional issues and implications of evidence. (Para 45 , 46) |
| 22. court's approach to resolving evidence conflicts. (Para 47 , 48) |
| 23. proper parties to the suit. (Para 49 , 50) |
| 24. final considerations on the nature of the case. (Para 51) |
| 25. final judgment and order of the court. (Para 52) |
[1] This Court decided on 18 April 2023 to allow the applications made in Encl 7 by the First Respondent and Encl 3 by the Second Respondent in this Originating Summons ("the OS") to strike out the OS filed by the Plaintiff (here in after referred to as "the Applicant") with costs. The Applicant did not appeal against the Court's decision. Nevertheless, here in the Grounds of Judgment are the reasons for striking out the OS.
Background
[2] The prayers in the OS (Encl 1) sought for the following orders from the Court:
"(i) Suatu Deklarasi bahawa Pemohon merupakan seorang individu yang mengakui dan mengamal agama Hindu dan bukan agama Islam;
(ii) Suatu Deklarasi bahawa pengislaman Pemohon adalah tidak sah dan terbatal;
(iii) Suatu Deklarasi bahawa nama Pemohon adalah "Lingges a/l Pannir Chelvan" dan bukannya "Azri bin Amin";
(iv) Kos tindakan ini; dan
(v) Lain-lain relif yang difikirkan patut dan suai manfaat oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini.
Alasan-alasan yang menyokong Saman Pemula ini adalah seperti yang berikut:
1. Pemohon menafikan sama sekali bahawa Pemohon memahami dan mengucapkan Dua Kalimah Syahadah dan bahawa Pemohon telah memeluk agama Islam dengan rela hati.
2. Pemohon telah dianggap memeluk agama Islam selaras dengan s 98 EPAI 1992 kerana Pemohon merupakan seorang kanak-kanak pada 15 Ogos 2002.
3. Pemohon juga menafikan bahawa Pemohon mengaku tiada Tuhan yang disembah melainkan Allah dan mengaku Nabi Muhammad Pesuruh Allah.
4. Pemohon menyatakan bahawa Pemohon merupakan seorang penganut agama Hindu yang kuat dan tidak pernah mengamalkan sistem kepercayaan-kepercayaan atau doktrin-doktrin agama Islam.
5. Didikan Pemohon di rumah telah dijalankan atas dasar bahawa Pemohon adalah penganut agama Hindu. Pemohon mengakui agama Hindu sebagai agama Pemohon.
6. Pemohon tidak boleh, dan tidak akan, dalam apa jua keadaan sekalipun menarik balik atau meninggalkan kepercayaan agama Hindu mereka atau memeluk mana-mana agama.
7. Pemohon bersandar kepada hak Pemohon untuk mengamali dan mempraktikkan agama Hindu merupakan hak perlembagaan dibawah art 11 Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang juga merupakan satu hak asasi manusia seperti yang dinyatakan dalam Perisytiharan Sejagat Hak Asasi Manusia 1948 oleh Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu dan pelbagai instrumen hak asasi manusia yang lain.
8. Pada setiap masa material, Pemohon tidak p
