The jurisdiction to decide on the renunciation of Islam lies exclusively with the Syariah Courts, and civil courts cannot intervene in such matters under Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution.

Judgment

Introduction

[1]The Applicant on 20.4.2023 filed an application that leave be granted to the Applicant under Order 53 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012(ROC) to apply for a judicial review (Enclosure 1).

[2]The Applicant seeks the following reliefs: -

(a)A declaration that the Administration of Islamic Law (Federai Territories) Act 1993 (Act 505) gives an implied jurisdiction to the 1^st Respondent to declare that a person is no longer a Muslim;

(b)A declaration that Section 91 Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution ( FC ) and alternatively, a declaration that Section 91

(c)A declaration that Section 85 (1) Section 2 (d)

(d)A declaration that the definition of Muslim in Section 2 (e)

(e)A declaration that pursuant to Article 11(1) of the FC , the Applicant has a right to profess and practice the religion of her choice;

(f)An order of mandamus that the 1^st Respondent must consider the Applicant’s application for her name to be cancelled from the Register of Muallafs, and make a decision immediately; and

(g)A declaration that the refusal and/or delay of the 1^st Respondent to decide the Applicant’s application in the letters dated 30.1.2023, 20.2.2023 and 17.3.2023 is irrational and unreasonable.

[3]In the application, the Applicant essentially seeks leave for judicial review to challenge the alleged omission on the part of the 1^st Respondent to decide on her application to renounce Islam.

[4]After the hearing, I dismissed the Applicant’s application in Enclosure 1 and will now set out the grounds for my judgment.

Background Facts

[5]The background facts of this case are largely undisputed and can be summarized as follows: -

(a)The Applicant was born on 9.7.1997 to Christian parents and was baptised by her parents on 28.1.1998;

(b)The Applicant was raised as a Christian by her parents and was confirmed as a Christian on 6.9.2013 when she was 16 years old;

(c)On 18.8.2017, the Applicant converted to Islam and was registered as a Muallaf by the 1^st Respondent;

(d)On 27.1.2022, the Applicant affirmed a statutory declaration where she stated that she wanted to renounce Islam and revert to Christian;

(e)On 30.1.2023, the Applicant through her solicitor issued a letter to the 1^st Respondent to apply for her name to be cancelled from the Register of Muallafs;

(f)On 20.2.2023, the Applicant through her solicitor issued a letter to the 1^st Respondent to obtain the latest status of her application;

(g)On 17.3.2023, the Applicant through her solicitor issued a letter to the 1^st Respondent to demand that the 1^st Respondent decide her application within 7 days from the date of the letter; and

(h)As of the date of filing of the Application, the 1^st Respondent has not given any decision on her application.

The Law

[6]The Federal Court in WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd ; ; [2012] 4 MLJ 296at 303, speaking through Suriyadi Halim Omar FCJ (as he then was) held:

“... Leave may be granted if the leave application is not thought of as frivolous, and if leave is granted, an arguable case in favour of granting the relief sought at the substantive hearing may be the resultant outcome. A rider must be attached to the application though i.e. unless the matter for judicial review is amenable to judicial review absolutely no success may be envisaged.”

[7]The test laid down for leave to commence a judicial review in WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd (supra) are as follows:

(i)whether the subject matter is amenable to judicial review; and if so

(ii)from the materials available, whether the application