Lee Swee Seng JC:

[1]The applicant Indira Gandhi married Pathmanathan (the sixth respondent) in a civil marriage on 10 April 1993. Their love blossomed and they were blessed with three children. The first is Tevi Darshiny and she was 12 years old at the time of filing of this application for judicial review. The second is Karan Dinesh, 11 years old then. The youngest, Prasana Diksa was hardly 11 months old then.

[2]What was once love and blessings has become a legal battlefield. She recounted that in the beginning of 2009 there were many quarrels and altercations that culminated in the husband forcibly whisking the youngest child from her on 31 March 2009. The baby was still nursing at her breast. She [2013] 5 MLJ 552 at 560lodged a police report.

THE PROBLEM

[3]Things happened in quick succession. She was told by the police that her husband had converted to Islam. His new name is Muhammad Riduan bin Abdullah. She was fearful that he might forcibly convert the three children as well. She ran to court for an ex parte application in Ipoh High Court OS MT1-24–513 of 2009 for an interim custody order of the three children and an injunction to restrain the husband from forcibly removing the three children. She also asked for an order that the husband or whoever was having custody of her baby to hand back the baby to her.

[4]Before the inter parte hearing on 30 April 2009 she read with anguish from the documents served on her by her husband that her three children have been converted to Islam and that the first respondent has registered the conversion. She saw for herself the exhibits attached to the affidavit of the husband showing the certificates of conversion to Islam for the three children and also the new names given them.

[5]She also learned that on 3 April 2009 the Shariah High Court had given care, control and custody of the three children to the husband. She worked feverishly with her solicitors and counsel to file this application. She has not seen her youngest child from then to this day. No mother can ever forget her nursing child.

THE PRAYERS

[6]The relevant reliefs prayed for are as follows.

[7]Take notice that the court will be moved on 6th day of August 2009, by the applicant above-named for leave to apply for judicial review of the conversion to Islam of Tevi Darsiny (Birth Certificate No AA 70160), Karan Dinish (Birth Certificate No AJ 27146) and Prasana Diksa (Birth Certificate No BZ 14511) (‘the children’) and of the first respondent’s decision to issue the certificate(s) of conversion to Islam (JAPK/DWH/02/78 Jld 3 [37]), (JAPK/DWH/02/78 Jld 3 [35]) and (JAPK/DWH/02/78 Jld 3 [36]0, all three dated 2 April 2009 in respect of the children (‘the certificates’) and asks for an order granting leave to apply for judicial review for the following orders:

(a)an Order of certiorari pursuant to Order 53, Rule 8(2) to remove the Certificates into the High Court to be quashed owing to non-compliance with Section 99, 100 and 101 of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004 (‘the Perak Enactment’);

[2013] 5 MLJ 552 at 561

(b)an Order of prohibition pursuant to Order 53, Rule 1 restraining the Second respondent and his servants, officers and/or agents from howsoever registering or causing to be registered the children and each of them as ‘Muslims’ or ‘Muallaf’ pursuant to the Perak Enactment;

(c)further or in the alternative, a declaration that the Certificates and each of them are null and void and of no effect as they are ultra vires and/or contrary to and/or inconsistent with

(i)the provisions of Part IX and in particular section 106(b) of the Perak Enactment, and/or

(ii)sections 511Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 (Act 351)

(iii)Article 12(4) read together with Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution

(d)further or in the alternative, a declaration that the Infants and each of them have not been converted to Islam in accordance with the law

(e)the costs of this application

(f)such further or other relief as this H