FMT:
One parent’s consent enough for minor’s conversion to Islam, court told
3 hours ago
Faisal Asyraf
Senior federal counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly asserts that Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution requires the consent of only one parent or guardian, not both parents
M Indira Gandhi and 13 others had filed a lawsuit challenging provisions in several state enactments relating to the conversion of minors.
KUALA LUMPUR: A minor’s conversion to Islam requires the consent of only one parent or guardian, says senior federal counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly in the High Court.
Hanir, appearing for the federal territories, asserted that Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution did not mandate the approval of both parents, but required only the consent of at least one responsible adult, whether a parent or guardian.
He was submitting at the hearing of a lawsuit filed by M Indira Gandhi and 13 others, challenging provisions in several state enactments relating to the conversion of minors.
The states named as defendants were Perlis, Kedah, Melaka, Negeri Sembilan, Perak, Johor, and the federal territories.
The suit was filed in March 2023.
Hanir argued that the plaintiffs’ reliance on the Federal Court’s 2018 decision in the Indira Gandhi case was insufficient, as the ruling was fact-specific and did not directly challenge the relevant state provisions or Section 95 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993.
“The plaintiffs’ reliance on the 2018 decision in the Indira Gandhi case is insufficient, as the decision therein is specific to the peculiar facts of that case and cannot be said to apply to all cases relating to the conversion of minors.
“The litmus test of mutual parental consent espoused in the Indira Gandhi decision cannot be applied to all cases of conversion of minors as it oversimplifies the complicated concept of the welfare of children and undermines the significance of their best interests,” he said.
Hanir said a broad construction of Article 12(4) should be adopted by interpreting the word “parent” in its plain, singular form.
“This is the proper construction, which allows for greater flexibility in the administration of laws relating to the conversion of minors, ensuring that no aspect of a child’s welfare is overlooked,” he said.
The plaintiffs, including Indira Gandhi, maintained that state laws allowing unilateral conversion of minors were unconstitutional, as they “breached” Article 12(4), which requires parental consent for a child’s religious upbringing.
Relying on the Federal Court’s 2018 ruling in her own case, Indira Gandhi said the word “parent” in Article 12(4) should be interpreted as “parents” if both are alive, meaning both the mother and father must consent before a child born to non-Muslim parents can be converted to Islam.
The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that all unilateral conversions carried out in those states since the 2018 decision be invalidated.
Alternatively, they seek an order that such conversions be subject to the consent of both parents and reversed if either parent refuses to do so within one year of a court order.
In today’s proceedings, the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Council (MAIWP) and the Johor Islamic Religious Council (MAIJ) appeared as interveners.
Justice Aliza Sulaiman fixed May 21 for the decision.
Indira’s daughter Prasana Diksa was abducted by her former husband Riduan Abdullah nearly 18 years ago. She was 11 months old at the time.
Riduan had converted the couple’s three children to Islam in 2009 without Indira’s consent and sought custody through the shariah court.
On Jan 29, 2018, the Federal Court ruled that the conversions were null and void and ordered the inspector-general of police to arrest Riduan for defying the High Court’s directive to return Prasana.
The police said they had yet to locate Riduan and Prasana.
Hanir, appearing for the federal territories, asserted that Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution did not mandate the approval of both parents, but required only the consent of at least one responsible adult, whether a parent or guardian.
He was submitting at the hearing of a lawsuit filed by M Indira Gandhi and 13 others, challenging provisions in several state enactments relating to the conversion of minors.
The states named as defendants were Perlis, Kedah, Melaka, Negeri Sembilan, Perak, Johor, and the federal territories.
The suit was filed in March 2023.
Hanir argued that the plaintiffs’ reliance on the Federal Court’s 2018 decision in the Indira Gandhi case was insufficient, as the ruling was fact-specific and did not directly challenge the relevant state provisions or Section 95 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993.
“The plaintiffs’ reliance on the 2018 decision in the Indira Gandhi case is insufficient, as the decision therein is specific to the peculiar facts of that case and cannot be said to apply to all cases relating to the conversion of minors.
“The litmus test of mutual parental consent espoused in the Indira Gandhi decision cannot be applied to all cases of conversion of minors as it oversimplifies the complicated concept of the welfare of children and undermines the significance of their best interests,” he said.
Hanir said a broad construction of Article 12(4) should be adopted by interpreting the word “parent” in its plain, singular form.
“This is the proper construction, which allows for greater flexibility in the administration of laws relating to the conversion of minors, ensuring that no aspect of a child’s welfare is overlooked,” he said.
The plaintiffs, including Indira Gandhi, maintained that state laws allowing unilateral conversion of minors were unconstitutional, as they “breached” Article 12(4), which requires parental consent for a child’s religious upbringing.
Relying on the Federal Court’s 2018 ruling in her own case, Indira Gandhi said the word “parent” in Article 12(4) should be interpreted as “parents” if both are alive, meaning both the mother and father must consent before a child born to non-Muslim parents can be converted to Islam.
The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that all unilateral conversions carried out in those states since the 2018 decision be invalidated.
Alternatively, they seek an order that such conversions be subject to the consent of both parents and reversed if either parent refuses to do so within one year of a court order.
In today’s proceedings, the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Council (MAIWP) and the Johor Islamic Religious Council (MAIJ) appeared as interveners.
Justice Aliza Sulaiman fixed May 21 for the decision.
Indira’s daughter Prasana Diksa was abducted by her former husband Riduan Abdullah nearly 18 years ago. She was 11 months old at the time.
Riduan had converted the couple’s three children to Islam in 2009 without Indira’s consent and sought custody through the shariah court.
On Jan 29, 2018, the Federal Court ruled that the conversions were null and void and ordered the inspector-general of police to arrest Riduan for defying the High Court’s directive to return Prasana.
The police said they had yet to locate Riduan and Prasana.
***
This issue had long been settled yet the clerics have exhumed it and are making kerbau out of it. Disgusting
No comments:
Post a Comment