Mum seeks to cite religious officers for contempt in conversion case
A mother who was allegedly unilaterally converted when young has filed to cite five Johor state religious officers for contempt over their purported harassment of her.
The 25-year-old filed the committal application - targeting the five Kota Tinggi Islamic Religious Council Officers - at the High Court (civil jurisdiction) in Kuala Lumpur on April 12.
Back on March 29, her counsel Rajesh Nagarajan told Malaysiakini that she was allegedly harassed over her role as one of the 14 plaintiffs in a legal challenge against eight states’ unilateral conversion laws.
According to a copy of the committal application, the mother claimed that the five religious officers had committed “obstruction of the due course of justice”.
When contacted, Rajesh confirmed that the civil court has set May 2 for case management of the committal application.
Under the law, a party found guilty of contempt of court may be sentenced to jail.
On March 3 before the High Court in Kuala Lumpur, the woman and M Indira Gandhi as well as 12 other plaintiffs filed the originating summons to strike down the unilateral conversion laws of eight states, including Johor.
The plaintiffs seek to rely on the landmark 2018 apex court ruling linked to the case of Indira’s Muslim convert ex-husband, who unilaterally converted their three children without her knowledge and consent.
Seeking to nullify laws
The lawsuit seeks a court declaration to nullify the unilateral conversion laws contained in the state enactments of the Federal Territories, as well as Perlis, Kedah, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Perak, and Johor.
Besides Indira, 48, the other 13 plaintiffs are NGOs Malaysia Hindu Sangam, its former chairperson S Mohan, Indira Gandhi Action Team chairperson Arun Dorasamy, the mother and another alleged victim of unilateral conversion, and eight citizens from the states.
The plaintiffs contended that the impugned state enactments are invalid for contravening Articles 12(4) and 75 of the Federal Constitution as well as the 2018 Federal Court ruling regarding unilateral conversion.
They listed the eight state enactments that allegedly contravened the Federal Court ruling over the phrase ibu bapa of Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which the apex court interpreted as ibu dan bapa (mother and father) for the purpose of consent for child religious conversions.
These enactments are Section 117 of the Administration of the Religion Islam (Perlis) Enactment 2006, Section 80 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Kedah) Enactment 2008, Section 105 of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Malacca) Enactment 2002, Section 117 of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 2003, Section 103 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Pahang) Enactment 1991, Section 106 of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004, Section 117 of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Johor) Enactment 2003, and the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) 1993.
This is one monumental battle the whole of Malaysia will be watching.
ReplyDeleteThe Malaysia Madani government must constantly be on guard against any violent reaction should the woman win her case.
Yup, other parties to a Court case attempting to pressure a litigant outside the Court amounts to interference with the judicial case.
ReplyDeleteCases DO get negotiated for settlement, but the proper way is to carry this out under Court supervision, to ensure no untoward pressure is applied, especially one of the parties is a government body.