2026 MarsdenLR 98040

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 religious conversion of a minor child requires the mutual consent of both parents. A unilateral conversion performed by only one parent is unconstitutional, null, and void ab initio, as the word 'parent' in the Federal Constitution must be interpreted to include both parents.

Headnote:(A) Federal Constitution - Article 3(1), Article 12(4), Article 74, Article 160B, Article 121(1A) - Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 - Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 - Judicial Review - Unilateral conversion of minor children to Islam - Essential requirement of consent from both parents.

(B) Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution specifies that the religion of a person under the age of eighteen years shall be decided by his 'parent or guardian'. Applying a purposive interpretation through the lens of constitutional supremacy and the best interests of the child, the term 'parent' must be construed as 'parents' in the plural, requiring the mutual consent of both parents for any religious conversion of a minor child. This interpretation is a constitutional safeguard to protect the joint rights of both mother and father. (Paras 13, 100-103, 116)

(C) Civil courts possess the jurisdiction to determine the status of persons who claim to have never been a Muslim from the start ('ab initio'), as opposed to cases of renunciation which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of Shariah courts. An application challenging the validity of a conversion based on the lack of parental consent constitutes an 'ab initio' challenge, as it questions the identity of the person under the Federal Constitution rather than their faith. (Paras 71-73)

Facts of the case:
An applicant sought a judicial review to challenge the unilateral conversion of his minor children to Islam. The children were converted by their mother without the applicant's knowledge or consent while the parents were effectively estranged. The applicant discovered the conversions only after the mother's passing. The applicant challenged the validity of the certificates of conversion, arguing they were issued in violation of his constitutional rights as a joint parent under the Federal Constitution.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the application was an 'ab initio' matter, bringing it within the civil court's jurisdiction. The court rejected the argument that the mother's custody rights allowed for unilateral conversion, noting that the requirement of mutual consent is a paramount constitutional principle for minors. The lack of consent from both parents rendered the certificates void ab initio.

Issues: The main issues were whether the civil court had jurisdiction to determine the legality of the conversion, whether the consent of both parents is legally required for the conversion of a minor child, and whether the authoritative text of the Federal Constitution is the English version.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that pursuant to the Federal Constitution, the consent of both parents is mandatory for the religious conversion of a minor child. Any conversion performed without such mutual consent is ultra vires and void. Furthermore, the English text of the Federal Constitution remains the authoritative version until a national language text is formally prescribed under Article 160B.

Result: Application allowed in part; declarations and orders of certiorari and prohibition granted to rectify the conversion records.