.png)
THE Kuala Lumpur High Court has scheduled May 21 for the delivery of its judgment on a landmark originating summons filed by M. Indira Gandhi and 13 others, contesting the validity of state laws permitting unilateral religious conversion of minors.
Judge Datuk Aliza Sulaiman today fixed 2.30pm on May 21 for the decision to be delivered via Zoom, following submissions from legal counsel representing both sides in the case.
The plaintiffs, led by Indira Gandhi, filed the originating summons in March 2023, seeking to nullify state laws in Johor, Perlis, Melaka, Kedah, Negri Sembilan, Perak and the Federal Territories that allow one parent to unilaterally convert a child below 18 years of age.
The Federal Territory Islamic Religious Council (MAIWP) and the Johor Islamic Religious Council are interveners in the proceedings.
Arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs, counsel Rajesh Nagarajan asserted that the state authorities had failed to justify laws permitting unilateral conversion, which he said contravened Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution and established Federal Court rulings.
"The defendants’ failure to provide any justification highlights that their state laws allowing unilateral conversion of a child below the age of 18 are inconsistent with Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution and established Federal Court authorities," Nagarajan said.
Senior federal counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly @ Arwi, representing the Federal Territories, countered that the 2018 Federal Court decision in Indira Gandhi could not be treated as binding authority to invalidate Section 106 of the Perak Enactment or similar provisions, including Section 95 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993 [Act 505].
"Section 95 of Act 505 is cloaked with a strong presumption of constitutionality. This presumption is based on the recognition that the legislature is deemed to understand the needs of the people," he said.
Counsel Danial Farhan Zainul Rijal, representing MAIWP, contended that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary locus standi, arguing that they had failed to demonstrate any genuine grievance or personal injury.
Therefore, their invocation of this court’s jurisdiction is not for the genuine purpose of obtaining relief for a wrong done to them, but rather for the collateral purpose of challenging the sanctity of State Enactments and Hukum Syarak (Syariah law) in the abstract," he said.
Another MAIWP counsel, Arham Rahimy Hariri, described the challenge as purely academic, noting that the plaintiffs had provided no factual evidence linking them to the alleged harm or adverse effects of the contested provisions. He urged the court to dismiss the originating summons.
The plaintiffs argued that the state enactments violate Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which stipulates that a person under 18 years should have their religion determined by their parent or guardian.
In the 2018 Federal Court ruling, the term "parent" was interpreted to mean "both parents" if both are alive, requiring both parents’ consent for conversion.
They further contended that under Article 75, federal law prevails over any inconsistent state legislation, and accordingly, the state provisions permitting unilateral conversion should be declared void. - February 3, 2026