.png)
In a poignant escalation of a legal struggle spanning over 17 years, M. Indira Gandhi has filed a committal application against the office of the Inspector-General of Police, accusing the authorities of contempt of court for failing to enforce a High Court order dating back to 2014.
The order required police to locate her abducted daughter, Prasana Diksa, and arrest her ex-husband, Muhammad Riduan Abdullah, yet no action has been taken to date.
Indira submitted the application in December 2025 under Order 52 of the Rules of Court 2012.
The matter is set for a preliminary hearing at the Ipoh High Court on April 24, where a judge will decide whether she can proceed to a full hearing.
Her lawyer, Rajesh Nagarajan, told the New Straits Times that Indira is disheartened by what he described as the police’s “lackadaisical attitude” in carrying out their duties.
“This action is being taken because the police failed to discharge their duties under the Police Act, which is why they are in contempt of court,” he explained.
The urgency of the case is heightened by the imminent milestone of Prasana’s 18th birthday on April 8, after which Indira will lose her legal recourse under the Child Act 2001 to compel authorities to continue the search.
Prasana was only 11 months old when abducted in 2010, following her father’s unilateral conversion of their three children to Islam without Indira’s consent.
“This is something we have already known. They have advised me on that. But as a mother, I am hoping for a miracle,” Indira said, expressing her enduring hope that her daughter may one day reach out voluntarily.
“I just want to meet Prasana. She should know by now that she has a biological mother and siblings.”
Indira’s two older children, a 28-year-old daughter and a 27-year-old son, continue to live with her in Ipoh.
Her legal battle began in 2009 challenging the unilateral conversions, and although she was granted custody of all three children in 2010, Riduan absconded with Prasana.
In 2018, the Federal Court ruled that the unilateral conversions were invalid, affirming that both parents’ consent is required under Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution.
While widely regarded as a landmark decision, it did not result in Indira being reunited with her youngest child.
Rajesh Nagarajan confirmed that once the 2014 recovery order lapses with Prasana’s adulthood, Indira will have no further legal mechanism to compel authorities to continue the search.
Despite the looming legal deadline, she remains hopeful that her daughter will one day discover the truth of her past and reconnect with her family. - March 18, 2026
