2026 MarsdenLR 96386

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
NARKUNAVATHY SUNDARESON, J
LIM VUI FOH – Appellant
Versus
JABATAN AGAMA ISLAM PAHANG & ORS – Respondent
[Judicial Review Application No: BA-25-6-01/2024]

The conversion of a minor child to another religion requires the consent of both parents. A unilateral conversion by one parent is unconstitutional, violating the joint parental rights guaranteed under the Federal Constitution, and such conversions are void ab initio.

Headnote:(A) Federal Constitution - Articles 3(1), 12(4), 121(1A), 160B - Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 - Unilateral conversion of minors - Right to religious upbringing - A purposive and prismatic interpretation of the Federal Constitution is required, particularly regarding fundamental liberties — The term 'parent' in Article 12(4) must be interpreted to mean both parents, requiring mutual consent for the conversion of a minor child to another religion — The civil courts retain jurisdiction in 'ab initio' cases where the validity of a conversion itself is challenged on constitutional grounds. (Paras 60, 61, 71, 72, 89, 100, 101, 107)

(B) Judicial Review - Administrative Law - Supervisory jurisdiction - Non-joinder of parties - Technical irregularities, such as the non-joinder of a specific registrar, should not defeat a substantive constitutional challenge where the supervisory authority is already a party to the proceedings. (Paras 74, 75, 77)

(C) Statutory Interpretation - Authoritative text of a constitution - In the absence of a formal prescription under Article 160B of the Federal Constitution, the English version remains the authoritative text, consistent with binding judicial precedent. (Paras 66, 67, 69, 70)

Facts of the case:
The applicant sought a judicial review to challenge the unilateral conversion of his two minor children to another religion by his former spouse without his knowledge or consent. Following the death of the former spouse, the applicant discovered that certificates of conversion had been issued by religious authorities in different jurisdictions. The applicant argued that the conversions were illegal, void ab initio, and violated his constitutional rights as a parent regarding the religious upbringing of his children.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the conversions were invalid due to the absence of the applicant's consent as a joint guardian. The court held that the constitutional provision regarding the choice of a minor's religion requires the concurrence of both parents. The court further clarified that the challenge was an 'ab initio' matter concerning constitutional identity, rather than an application for renunciation of religion, thus falling under the jurisdiction of the civil courts.

Issues: The main issues were whether a minor can be converted to another religion on the unilateral consent of one parent, and whether the civil court has the jurisdiction to address such a challenge despite state religious legislation and administrative registrations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that under Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, as interpreted through a purposive and prismatic approach, the consent of both parents is mandatory for the conversion of a minor child to another religion. Consequently, any conversion effected unilaterally is unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void ab initio.

Result: The court granted declarations that the children profess their original faith, ordered the certificates of conversion to be quashed, and issued directions to the relevant authorities to rectify the children's status in their identity documents.