The Syariah Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over matters of conversion and renunciation of Islam, and prior judicial admissions bind parties in subsequent civil proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Roz Mawar Rozain JC:

Introduction

[1] The 1st plaintiff is the mother of the 2nd to 4th plaintiffs. Together, on 7 December 2022, they had filed this action seeking declarations that the 1st plaintiff's conversion to Islam is invalid and consequently, the 2 nd to 4th plaintiffs, being her children, are not Muslims, as their status follows that of their mother. The 1st plaintiff contended that she never converted to Islam voluntarily. She claimed that any records that show otherwise were obtained through duress by her then-husband, Mohd Talib bin Abdullah @ Ganasegaran a/l Apalanaidu (Ganasegaran). It is the plaintiffs' case that they profess the Hindu faith and have never practiced Islam.

[2] The 1st defendant did not enter appearance, so the plaintiffs had moved this Court to enter a judgment in default of its appearance and the absence of its filing in Defence. Because the orders sought are declaratory in nature, this Court decided on 10 July 2023 (at the hearing of the plaintiffs' application) to enter its judgment against the 1st defendant at the end of trial.

[3] The 2nd defendant disputed the plaintiffs' claim and contended that, based on various official records, including their identity cards and the 1st plaintiff's Kad Akuan Islam (Islamic Conversion Card), the 1st plaintiff had embraced Islam on 8 November 1990 and had affirmed this in her own affidavit in prior proceedings before the Syariah Court, where she sought to dissolve her marriage on the grounds that she had converted to Islam. The Syariah Courts had dissolved her marriage to Ganasegaran as of 14 January 2009. Then, in 2016, she filed a suit at the Syariah Court contending that her status as a Muslim was only on paper and that she had never practised Islam. The 1st plaintiff sought a declaration from the Syariah Court that she was no longer a Muslim. Her suit was dismissed by the Syariah High Court and she was declared a Muslim. So, the 2nd defendant contended that the filing of this suit is an abuse of Court process as the issues had already been determined by the Syariah Courts and the proper forum for the plaintiffs to renounce Islam is before the Syariah Courts.

[4] In essence, the orders sought for by the plaintiffs are:

(a) a declaration that the 1st plaintiff is an individual that professes and practices the Hindu religion, and not Islam;

(b) a declaration that the conversion of the 1st plaintiff to Islam and the issuance of the conversion card to her dated 8 November 1990 is invalid and void;

(c) a declaration that the marriage between the 1st plaintiff and Ganasegaran is not valid pursuant to ss 5(1) and 6(1) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ;

(d) a declaration that the 2nd to 4th plaintiffs are illegitimate children of the 1st plaintiff and Ganasegaran; and

(e) a declaration that the 2nd to 4th plaintiffs were never Muslims since birth because their mother, the 1st plaintiff, is a Hindu devotee.

[5] Based on the pleadings, the key issues that arise in this case are:

(i) whether this Court, being a Civil Court, has jurisdiction to determine the validity of the 1st plaintiff's conversion to Islam and consequently, the religious status of her children, the 2nd to 4th plaintiffs, or whether such jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Syariah Courts;

(ii) if this Court does have jurisdiction, whether on the facts and evidence, the 1st plaintiff's conversion to Islam was invalid and consequently, whether the 2nd to 4th plaintiffs, being children born to the 1st plaintiff after her purported conversion to Islam, are Muslims by virtue of their mother's conversion or by virtue of the fact that their birth certificates state their religion as Islam; and

(iii) whether the plaintiffs' claim is an abuse of Court process and/ or res judicata in light of the prior proceedings before the Syariah Courts, which had purportedly determined the validity of the 1st plaintiff's conversion to Islam and her religious status.

Factual Matrix

[6] Before all else, it