Both parents' consent is constitutionally required for the valid conversion of minors to Islam; unilateral conversion without consent is void.

Judgment

Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ (Majority):

[1] This is an application for leave to appeal under s 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ("CJA") in respect of a decision handed down by the Court of Appeal on 22 January 2024.

Facts

[2] The applicant/respondent was married to Nagahswaran a/l Muniandy ( Nagahswaran ) on 25 May 2008. At the time of their marriage, both the applicant and Nagahswaran professed the Hindu religion; in the applicant's words, she followed the "Hindu-Buddha" religion. Their marriage was solemnised under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 .

[3] The marriage resulted in the birth of twin daughters, Sulochana a/p Nagahswaran and Sulochini a/p Nagahswaran, on 7 November 2008, and a son, Thatchina Moorthi a/l Nagahswaran, born on 26 May 2011. The applicant affirmed that, at all material times, the three children professed the Hindu religion and had not converted to Islam.

[4] Between 3 March 2019 and 21 February 2022, the applicant was separated from her children due to Nagahswaran's actions, including physical abuse and forcing her to leave the matrimonial home.

[5] On 13 December 2019, the applicant filed a divorce petition at the Kuala Lumpur High Court (Loh Siew Hong v. Nagahswaran Muniandy; Majlis Agama Islam Dan Adat Istiadat Melayu Perlis (MAIPS) (Proposed Intervener); [2023] 9 MLJ 68; [2022] 8 CLJ 933).

[6] Subsequently, on 7 January 2020, the applicant obtained an ad interim order from the Kuala Lumpur High Court granting her sole guardianship, care, and control of the three children. Despite being fully aware of this Court order, Nagahswaran refused to comply and did not return the children to the applicant. Her attempts to regain custody of her children were unsuccessful.

[7] Following this, on 7 July 2020, Nagahswaran converted to Islam and attempted to also convert his three children. Subsequently, the applicant and Nagahswaran were divorced pursuant to a Kuala Lumpur High Court order dated 23 September 2021.

[8] The applicant, through her solicitors, sought clarification from the 1st respondent, the Registrar of Mualafs, Perlis, on the status of the alleged conversion to Islam of the three children since it was made without the applicant's consent as their lawful mother.

[9] In response to the applicant's inquiries, the 2nd respondent, Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Istiadat Melayu Perlis, stated that the conversion of the three children had been made with the consent of their father, Nagahswaran. The 2nd respondent referenced s 117(b) of the Perlis Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment in support of this assertion which they asserted authorised unilateral conversion.

[10] This forms the basis of the present judicial review and thereby the appeal. The High Court dismissed the judicial review on 11 May 2023. The Court of Appeal then set aside the High Court 's order and allowed the judicial review on 22 January 2024.

[11] In essence, the grounds of appeal raised by the Appellants can be summarised as follows: first, the Bahasa Malaysia version of the Federal Constitution was officially prescribed under art 160(a) when the Yang di-Pertuan Agong attended the launch of its translation. Second, the terms "parent" and "parents" are used to connote specific meaning in the Federal Constitution, a point they assert was not addressed in the Federal Court decision in Indira Gandhi Mutho v. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & Ors And Other Appeals; 2018 MarsdenLR 3081 ; ("Indira Gandhi"). Third, the decision in Indira Gandhi is limited to Wilayah Persekutuan Putrajaya, Kuala Lumpur, and Labuan, and does not apply to Perlis. Fourth, the present case is akin, in fact and principle, to the case of Dahlia Dhaima Abdullah v. Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (MAIS) & Another Appeal; [2025] 1 MLJ 334; [2024] 5 CLJ 855 , and should apply such that the minors in question have been validly converted.

Authoritative Text Of The Constitution

[12] The authoritative text of the Constitution is