Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

This case first came before us as a fully blown constitutional appeal. The gist of the appellant's complaint was that her constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion had been infringed by the Government. However, on closer scrutiny, there appeared to be a much narrower issue of administrative law of immediate importance that was at stake. It is whether the National Registration Department ("the NRD") had acted in accordance with law when it rejected the appellant's request to remove the word "Islam" from her National Registration Identity Card ("NRIC"). We therefore had to address this directly relevant issue and not the wider irrelevant one. We had also to give certain directions for that purpose. I will explain what we did. But first, it is necessary to set out in brief the factual matrix against which this appeal rests.

The appellant was born a Muslim. On 11 May 1998, she was baptised a Christian. Her given name was Azalina binti Jailani. She wanted to change it at first to Lina Lelani and later to Lina Joy. That, of course, required the change of her name as it appeared in her NRIC. She therefore applied to the NRD to have that done. What actually transpired between her and the NRD in terms of chronology is set out in her affidavit dated 7 February 2005 and I find it unnecessary to go any further than to quote from the following portions that I have extracted from it:

7. 1. 1 (a) On 21.2.1997, 1 applied to the NRD for a change of name in my identity card from 'Azlina binti Jailani' to 'Lina Lelani' on the ground that I no longer profess Islam and have since embraced Christianity ('the First Application'). The First Application was not approved by the Third Respondent.

7.1.2 In an application dated 15.3.99, 1 again applied to the NRD for a change of name in my identity card from 'Azlina binti Jailani' to 'Lina Joy' (the Second Application'). In support of the Second Application, I swore a statutory declaration on 15.3.1999 wherein I reiterated that I renounced the religion of Islam and have accepted the Christian faith.

7.1.3 There was no response from the NRD is respect of the Second Application. On or around July 1999, 1 attended at the NRD at its branch in Petaling Jaya to inquire about the delay in the matter.

7.1.4 The attending officer of the NRD, whose name I cannot recollect, advised me that since my application only relates to a change of name, I was requested by him, to avoid difficulty, not to mention in my statutory declaration the reason for the change of name being conversion of religion. He also requested me to resubmit the application form dated 15.3.1999 with a fresh statutory declaration. The aforesaid officer of the NRD informed me that if I did so, there would not be any difficulty in processing my application for a change of name in my identity card.

7.1.5 Pursuant the aforesaid advice of the said officer, I accordingly swore a further statutory declaration on 2.8.1999 without any mention whatsoever of the reason of conversion of religion (the 'new statutory declaration').

7.1.6 1 did so because under the Regulations as it was in force at that time, there was no requirement to mention a person's religion in the identity card including that of Muslims.

7.1.7 1 did not know that by this time, the Regulations will undergo a change and that there will be a requirement for an entry of religion in the identity card for persons of the Muslim faith.

7.1.8 I am advised by my solicitors whose advice I believe to be true, that prior to 1.10.1999, there was no provision in the Regulations requiring the word 'Islam' to be stated on the identity card.

7.1.9 On 2.8.1999, 1 resubmitted to the NRD, the application form dated 15.3.1999 together with the new statutory declaration.

8.1 By a letter dated 22.10.1999 I was informed by the NRD that my application for change of name has been approved. By the said letter I was required to apply for a identity card with the approved new na