Back
2024 MarsdenLR 291
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
LOH SIEW HONG – Appellant
Versus
PENDAFTAR MUALAF PERLIS & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-01(A)-255-05-2023]
Unilateral conversion of minors to Islam without both parents' consent is unlawful and unconstitutional, reaffirming the requirement for mutual consent as per Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Federal Constitution - Article 12(4) - Perlis Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment 2006 - Unilateral conversion of minors - Consent of both parents required for the conversion of minors to Islam - The unilateral conversion conducted by the father without the mother's consent is deemed unlawful and void. (Paras 34, 44, 60)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope - The High Court failed to address crucial issues regarding the legality of unilateral conversion and the constitutionality of the relevant law, leading to errors of law warranting appellate intervention. (Paras 55, 56)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a mother, contested the conversion of her three minor children to Islam by their father without her consent, arguing that such conversion is null and void. (Para 1)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the unilateral conversion of the children was unlawful as it violated constitutional rights requiring consent from both parents. (Para 63)
Issues: Whether the unilateral conversion is lawful and whether the relevant section of the enactment is unconstitutional. (Paras 18, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that both parents must consent to the conversion of minors, and the unilateral conversion without such consent is unconstitutional and void. (Paras 44, 60)
Result: Appeal allowed, decision of the High Court set aside, and judicial review application granted. (Para 63)
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This is a case of a father who had consented to convert his three minor children (twin girls aged 11 and a boy aged 9) from the Hindu religion to the religion of Islam without the knowledge and consent of the children's mother, namely Loh Siew Hong, the appellant herein. The unilateral conversion is not disputed by the respondents.
[2] The appellant challenged the legality of the conversion. She contended that without her consent, her children's conversion to Islam is null and void. She also contended that without her consent as the sole guardian of the children, the 1st respondent cannot issue certificates of conversion to her children; that the certificates are null and void and her children remain as Hindus.
[3] The appellant then applied by way of judicial review application at the Kuala Lumpur High Court, seeking for the following reliefs:
(a) perintah deklarasi untuk mengisytiharkan bahawa Sulochana a/p Nagahswaran, Sulochini a/p Nagahswaran dan Thatchina Moorthi a/l Nagahswaran adalah penganut-penganut agama Hindu;
(b) perintah deklarasi untuk mengisytiharkan bahawa Nagahswaran a/l Muniandy tidak mempunyai keupayaan dari segi undang-undang untuk membenarkan responden pertama mendaftarkan Sulochana a/p Nagahswaran, Sulochini a/p Nagahswaran dan Thatchina Moorthi a/l Nagahswaran sebagai mualaf, tanpa keizinan pemohon;
(c) perintah deklarasi untuk mengisytiharkan bahawa Sulochana a/p Nagahswaran, Sulochini a/p Nagahswaran dan Thatchina Moorthi a/l Nagahswaran, sebagai kanak-kanak, tidak mempunyai keupayaan dari segi undang-undang untuk memeluk agama Islam, tanpa keizinan pemohon;
(d) perintah certiorari untuk membatalkan Akuan-Akuan Memeluk Agama Islam bertarikh 7 Julai 2020 yang dikeluarkan oleh responden pertama atas nama-nama Sulochana a/p Nagahswaran (Daftar No JAIPs DAk 2 Fol 17/2020), Sulochini a/p Nagahswaran (Daftar No JAIPs DAK 2 Fol 18/2020) dan Thatchina Moorthi a/l Nagahswaran (Daftar No JAIPs DAk 2 Fol 16/2020);
(e) perintah certiorari untuk membatalkan Kad-Kad Rasmi Memeluk Agama Islam atas nama-nama Sulochana a/p Nagahswaran, Sulochini a/p Nagahswaran dan Thatchina Moorthi a/l Nagahswaran, jika ia telah dikeluarkan oleh responden pertama atau mana-mana pihak lain, atau perintah larangan untuk menghalang responden pertama atau mana-mana pihak lain mengeluarkan Kad-Kad Rasmi Memeluk Agama Islam atas nama-nama Sulochana a/p Nagahswaran, Sulochini a/p Nagahswaran dan Thatchina Moorthi a/l Nagahswaran, jika ia masih belum dikeluarkan lagi;
(f) perintah mandamus untuk mengarahkan responden pertama memadamkan atau membatalkan dalam Daftar Mualaf Negeri Perlis nama-nama Sulochana a/p Nagahswaran, Sulochini a/p Nagahswaran dan Thatchina Moorthi a/l Nagahswaran, dan juga nama-nama Islam mereka iaitu Nur Sulochana binti Nagahswaran, Nur Sulochini binti Nagahswaran dan Muhammad Thatchina Moorthi bin Nagahswaran;
(g) perintah larangan untuk menghalang responden ketiga, sama ada secara sendiri atau melalui mana-mana pegawai, pekerja atau agen Jabatan Mufti Negeri Perlis, membuat apa-apa kenyataan yang secara nyata atau tersirat boleh membawa maksud bahawa Sulochana a/p Nagahswaran, Sulochini a/p Nagahswaran dan Thatchina Moorthi ialah kanak-kanak mualaf atau kanak-kanak beragama Islam;
(h) perintah deklarasi untuk mengisytiharkan bahawa s 117(b) Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam 2006, dalam versi Bahasa Malaysia dan Bahasa Inggeris, sepertimana yang dipinda oleh s 7 Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam (Pindaan) 2016, setakat mana memberi kuasa kepada responden pertama untuk mendaftarkan seorang kanak-kanak sebagai mualaf hanya dengan keizinan daripada ibu atau bapa kanak-kanak tersebut, walaupun kedua-dua mereka masih hidup adalah tidak berpelembagaan dan, oleh itu, adalah tidak sah dan batal, setakat itu; dan
(i) perintah yang patut supaya responden ke-empat memberi kesan kepada semua perintah-perintah di atas.
[4] On 11 May 2023, the learned High Court Judge dismissed the appellant's judi
