The court affirmed that the jurisdiction to determine religious status lies with the Syariah Court, and the decision of the National Registration Department was not irrational or procedurally improper.

JUDGMENT

Anand Ponnudurai J:

Introduction

[1] The Applicant, who contends to be a Hindu, seeks an Order of certiorari to set aside/quash the decision of the 1st Respondent, dated 10 August 2023, which rejected her application to register her marriage under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 and also seeks an Order of mandamus to compel the 1st Respondent to register her marriage to a non-Muslim gentleman.

[2] From a perusal of the 1st Respondent's letter dated 10 August 2023, the reason for the 1st Respondent's decision is that their records reflect that the Applicant's natural mother, namely, Jumah Bee Binti Hassan, who passed away on 1 June 2017, was a Muslim.

[3] For the record, at the Hearing of the leave application in encl 1 on 7 November 2023, the learned Senior Federal Counsel had objected to the leave application on the grounds that this Court lacked the necessary jurisdiction to consider the application, as the Syariah Court was the competent Court that has exclusive jurisdiction. However, at that stage, as I only had the Applicant's affidavit in which Exh DN-4 therein clearly reflected that the Applicant's National Registration Identity Card (hereinafter referred to as "NRIC") records the Applicant's religion as a Hindu, I had granted leave as I was satisfied, at that stage, that the application was not frivolous.

[4] The Respondents have, thereafter, filed their Affidavit in Reply, setting out therein, the factual matrix of the Applicant's lineage with a view of justifying their decision not to register the Applicant's marriage on the basis that the Applicant's mother was a Muslim.

[5] I will now set out the parties' respective contentions with a view of determining if the application herein is with merit and whether the said decision dated 10 August 2023 ought to be quashed or set aside.

The Applicant's Contentions

[6] The Applicant's contentions are summarised as follows:

a. that the decision of the 1st Respondent dated 10 August 2023 is procedurally improper, illegal and unreasonable;

b. that the Applicant's birth certificate has always stated that the Applicant has been a Hindu since birth and it is, therefore, procedurally improper for the 1st Respondent to reject the Applicant's application to register her marriage under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 . Reliance is further placed on the chip of her NRIC, which states her religion as Hindu;

c. that the Applicant's birth certificate makes reference to a Deed Poll of her late mother that was executed on 5 December 1990, in which her late mother has stated that she wishes to renounce Islam and assume the name of Umarani;

d. that the decision of the 1st Respondent is illegal, as the Applicant is being denied her basic rights of getting married;

e. that the 1st Respondent has acted unreasonably by refusing to register the marriage of non-Muslims; and

f. that her marriage should be registered as she has complied with all necessary requirements of s 22(3) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 .

The 1st Respondent's Contentions

[7] The 1st Respondent contends the following:

a. that the Applicant's grandmother, Rahelabi binti Abdullah, had converted to Islam on 26 May 1969 based on a letter from the Jabatan Hal Ehwal Agama Islam Pulau Pinang dated 23 June 2022 (Exh ZM-6);

b. that, based on the National Registration Department's records, the evidence shows that Jumah Bee Binti Hassan was a Muslim at all material times;

c. that, if the 1st Respondent were to approve the registration of the Applicant's marriage, that then would amount to the National Registration Department accepting that the Applicant or her late mother were not Muslims, and this they have no jurisdiction to do;

d. that any issue in relation to the conversion/renunciation of Islam falls under art 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution and within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court;

e. that in so far as Jumah Bee Binti Hassan's Deed Poll is concerned, it is contended that the same