Back
2022 MarsdenLR 2882
HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
AHMAD KAMAL MD SHAHID, J
Av Mahkamah Rayuan – Plaintiff
Versus
Syariah Wilayah Persekutuan & Ors – Defendant
PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO WA-25-133-03/2022
Fahri Azzat (with Ameerul Aizat bin Noor Haslan and Iqbal Harith Liang bin Danial Liang) (Fahri, Azzat & Co) for the applicant.
Mohammad Sallehuddin bin Md Ali (Federal Counsel, Jabatan Peguam Negara) for the respondents.
Civil Courts have no jurisdiction over Syariah matters, reinforcing that conversion out of Islam is exclusively handled by Syariah Courts.
Headnote:(A) Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993 - Sections 2 and 46(2)(b)(x) - Syariah Courts Evidence (Federal Territories) Act 1997 - Section 86(5) - Jurisdiction - Civil Court's jurisdiction over Syariah matters - The Civil Court ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to hear matters related to conversion out of Islam, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts. The Applicant sought to declare the Syariah Courts' decisions void. The court dismissed the application for leave to commence judicial review, affirming that the demands for review did not meet the legal requirements for judicial review as established in prior cases. (Paras 22, 61, 89)
(B) Legal review scope - The court underscored that applications for judicial review pertaining to Syariah Court decisions are non-justiciable by civil courts, emphasizing the delineation of jurisdiction as dictated by Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution. (Paras 59, 70)
[1]The Applicant on 4.3.2022 filed an application that leave be granted to the Applicant under Order 53 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court (ROC) 2012 to apply for judicial review (JR) (Enclosure 1).
[2]The Applicant seeks the following reliefs:
A)Leave to apply for JR as well as the JR for the grant of the following reliefs under the 1st Main Ground of JR that the 1st and 2nd Respondents have no jurisdiction over Muslim renunciation cases in Malaysia:-
(i)a declaration that the 1st and 2nd Respondents do not have the jurisdiction and/or power to declare that a person is no longer a Muslim;
(ii)a declaration that the 1st and 2nd Respondents do not have jurisdiction over Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan (MAIWP);
(iii)a declaration that the 1st Respondent’s Order in the Syariah Court of Appeal No. 14000-043-0027-2020 dated 8.12.2021 is illegal and/or unlawful and thus void;
(iv)a declaration that the 2nd Respondent’s Order in the Syariah High Court Case No. 14300-043-0309-2018 dated 27.7.2020 is illegal and/or unlawful and thus void;
(v)a declaration that the Applicant, A, is entitled to profess her religion of Confucianism and/or Buddhism;
(vi)a declaration that the Applicant is no longer a Muslim;
(vii)a declaration that section 86(5) of the Syariah Courts Evidence (Federal Territories) Act 1997 is inconsistent with Article 8 of the Federal Constitution (FC), and is therefore unconstitutional and void;
(viii)a declaration that section 2Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993(AIA), which defines a Muslim as, among others, “seseorang yang salah seorang atau kedua ibu bapanya, pada masa kelahiran orang itu, ialah orang islam”, is to this extent, violative of Article 11 of the FC and void;
(ix)a certiorari order to quash the 1st Respondent’s Order in the Syariah Court of Appeal No. 14000-043-00272020 dated 8.12.2021;
(x)a certiorari order to quash the 2nd Respondent’s Order in the Syariah High Court Case No. 14300043-0309-2018 dated 27.7.2020;
(xi)an interim stay against the 2nd Respondent’s Order in the Syariah High Court case No. 14300-043-03092018 dated 27.7.2020 and the 1st Respondent’s Order in the Syariah Court of Appeal No. 14000-0430027-2020 dated 8.12.2021 pending the disposal of this JR Application;
(xii)general, aggravated and exemplary damages against the Respondents in respect of the illegal Pre-Trial Akidah Counseling Sessions Order and post-trial, if any;
(xiii)costs against the Respondents; and
(xiv)any other orders and/or reliefs deemed necessary by this Honourable Court.
B)Leave to apply for the following reliefs, in the alternative, under the 2nd Main Ground of JR that the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Orders are unlawful and illegal:-
(i)a declaration that the 1st and 2nd Respondents do not have the jurisdiction and/or power to declare that a person is no longer a Muslim;
(ii)a declaration that the 1st and 2nd Respondents do not have jurisdiction over MAIWP;
(iii)a declaration that the 1st Respondent’s Order in the Syariah Court of Appeal No. 14000-043-0027-2020 dated 8.12.2021 is illegal and/or unlawful and thus void;
(iv)a declaration that the 2nd Respondent’s Order in the Syariah High Court Case No. No. 14300-043-03092018 dated 27.7.2020 is illegal and/or unlawful and thus void;
(v)a declaration that the Applicant, A, is entitled to profess her religion of Confucianism and/or Buddhism;
(vi)a declaration that the Applicant is no longer a Muslim;
(vii)a declaration that section 86(5) of the Syariah Courts Evidence (Federal Territories) Act 1997 is inconsistent with Article 8 of the FC, and is therefore unconstitutional and void;
(viii)a declaration that section 2 of the AIA, which defines a Muslim as, among others, “seseorang yang salah seorang atau kedua ibu bapanya, pada masa kelahiran orang itu, ialah orang Islam”, is to this extent, violative of Article 11 of the FC and void;
(ix)a certiorari order to quash the 1st Respondent’s Order in the Syariah Court of Appeal No. 14000-043-00272020 dated 8.12.2021;
(x)a certiorar
