A minor lacks the legal capacity to convert to Islam without parental consent, rendering such conversion invalid ab initio.

JUDGMENT

Quay Chew Soon J:

Introduction

[1] The Applicant filed this application for judicial review on 17 September 2023 to seek for the following reliefs:

(a) a declaration that the registration of the Applicant as mualaf (convert) by the 2nd Respondent on 11 June 2020 is invalid;

(b) a certiorari to cancel the 'Kad Akuan Masuk Islam' (certificate of conversion) and any other certificate issued by the 1st Respondent or the 2nd Respondent to the Applicant;

(c) a mandamus to direct the 2nd Respondent to delete all the details of the Applicant in the Register of Mualafs; and

(d) a declaration that the Applicant is still professing the religion of Christianity (Catholicism).

[2] The Applicant also sought for an extension of time pursuant to O 53 r 3(7) of the Rules of 2012.

[3] On 11 December 2023, I granted an extension of time. On 16 April 2024, I allowed the application for judicial review. Here are the grounds of my decision.

Background Facts

[4] The Applicant was born on 22 November 2002 in Sabah. Her parents are Christians (Catholics) of the Murut descent.

[5] On 11 June 2020, the Applicant went to the office of the Islamic Propagation Society International ("IPSI") in George Town, Penang to convert to Islam. The Applicant was accompanied by her then boyfriend.

[6] On 17 June 2020, the 2nd Respondent registered the Applicant as a convert. On 29 June 2020, the 2nd Respondent issued a certificate of conversion ('Kad Akuan Masuk Islam') to the Applicant.

[7] At that point in time, the Applicant was 17 years and 6 months old. Under the Age of Majority Act 1971 , the Applicant only attained the age of majority (ie 18 years) on 22 November 2020.

[8] On 27 April 2023, the Applicant through her solicitors wrote a letter to the 1st Respondent, informing that her conversion to Islam was void ab initio. The Applicant requested a written confirmation to that effect.

[9] By way of a letter dated 3 August 2023, the 1st Respondent rejected the Applicant's request. The 1st Respondent informed the Applicant to file an application for the determination of her religion at the Penang Syariah High Court.

The Question Of Jurisdiction

[10] As a pivotal matter of jurisdiction, the critical question to be determined here is whether this matter is a renunciation (no longer being a Muslim, ie, converting out of Islam) or an Ab initio case (never have been a Muslim).

[11] It is settled law that the question of conversion and the determination of whether a person is a Muslim or not, ie renunciation, fall under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court. (See the Federal Court cases of Soon Singh Bikar Singh v. Pertubuhan Kebajikan Islam Malaysia (PERKIM) Kedah & Anor, [1999] 1 MLJ 489; Lina Joy lwn. Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Yang Lain; [2007] 4 MLJ 585; [2007] 3 CLJ 557; [2005] 5 AMR 663).

[12] The landmark case of Indira Gandhi Mutho v. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & Ors And Other Appeals, [2018] 1 MLJ 545, involving the issue of unilateral conversion of children to Islam, gave rise to a critical distinction between Ab initio and renunciation cases. The brief facts are these. The appellant and the respondent were married under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The respondent husband converted to Islam. Thereafter, he unilaterally converted the three children of the marriage aged twelve, eleven and eleven months old. The appellant wife then filed an application for judicial review, challenging the decision of the Registrar of Muallafs. To wit, that the children's conversion to Islam was void, as it was done without her consent.

[13] The Federal Court held that the application does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court, as it is not a matter involving the question of the children being 'no longer a Muslim'. Rather the certificates of conversion issued by the Registrar of Muallafs, in respect of the children's conversion to Islam, are void.

[14] The Federal Court said (at pp 27-28):

"[62]... Undoubtedly, s 50 of the Perak Enac