.png)
THE Kuala Lumpur High Court has dismissed a landmark legal challenge mounted by kindergarten teacher M. Indira Gandhi and 13 other plaintiffs seeking to strike down provisions in several state Islamic laws that permit the conversion of children to Islam with the consent of only one parent.
In a ruling delivered online, Judicial Commissioner Datuk Aliza Sulaiman held that the plaintiffs failed to establish locus standi, or legal standing, to bring the action, concluding that they had not demonstrated they were directly affected by the disputed provisions.
The court further found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove they possessed a “real or genuine interest” sufficient to justify the constitutional challenge.
“The plaintiffs failed to show that they have an interest in obtaining declarations, including that Islamic legal provisions in seven jurisdictions which permit the conversion of a child by one Muslim parent are unconstitutional,” the judge said.
Aliza noted that even when applying a broader public-interest threshold, the plaintiffs had not established a sufficient connection to the issues raised in the suit.
“Even if the requirement is relaxed and they are regarded merely as individuals and associations concerned with matters of public interest, I am unable to see that they have any interest in this matter,” she said.
However, recognising the public-interest nature of the proceedings, the court made no order as to costs, meaning Indira Gandhi and the other plaintiffs will not be required to pay legal expenses.
The suit, filed in March 2023, sought declarations that provisions in Islamic enactments in Johor, Perlis, Kedah, Negeri Sembilan, Perak, Melaka and the Federal Territories were unconstitutional because they allowed minors below the age of 18 to be converted to Islam with the consent of only one parent.
The plaintiffs argued that the provisions were inconsistent with Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution and contradicted the Federal Court's landmark 2018 ruling in Indira Gandhi's case concerning unilateral religious conversion.
They also sought a declaration that any unilateral conversion carried out after the Federal Court's 2018 decision was unconstitutional and legally invalid.
At the centre of the dispute was Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that the religion of a person under the age of 18 shall be determined by his or her “parent or guardian”.
In the 2018 Federal Court ruling involving Indira Gandhi, the term “parent” was interpreted to mean both parents where both are living, effectively requiring the consent of both mother and father in matters involving a child's religious conversion.
The plaintiffs argued that, pursuant to Article 75 of the Federal Constitution, federal law prevails over any inconsistent state legislation and therefore state enactments permitting unilateral conversion should be declared void.
The challenge named the governments of Johor, Perlis, Melaka, Kedah, Negeri Sembilan and Perak, as well as the Federal Territories administration. The Federal Territories Islamic Religious Council and the Johor Islamic Religious Council participated in the proceedings as interveners.
The ruling represents a significant legal setback for campaigners seeking judicial clarification on the constitutionality of unilateral child conversions, while leaving unresolved broader constitutional questions surrounding the relationship between federal constitutional protections and state Islamic legislation. - June 12, 2026
