KUALA LUMPUR (March 30): One of the plaintiffs who filed a recent originating summons (OS) seeking to nullify laws in seven states and the Federal Territories allowing unilateral conversions of minors to Islam, will also file contempt of court proceedings against the Johor Islamic Religious Department (JAIJ) for alleged harassment.
Rights activist Arun Dorasamy, in a press conference regarding the alleged harassment, said that JAIJ is also one of the defendants named in the OS.
Arun said that the Kota Tinggi branch of JAIJ had gone to the plaintiff’s home recently and allegedly bothered her and her children.
“They went to her house and scolded her for not wearing a hijab, they took pictures of her kids and her house and scolded her for filing the case at the KL High Court. This is unacceptable. She has the right to file her case. This type of harassment is uncalled for and illegal and it’s tampering with the witness,” he said.
He said that the plaintiff had lodged a police report in Ulu Tiram, Johor, and law firm Messrs Raj and Sach are preparing to file contempt of court proceedings against JAIJ.
The OS was filed earlier this month after a 2018 landmark decision by the Federal Court that declared a single parent's unilateral conversion of minors to Islam is unlawful.
The plaintiffs of the OS are kindergarten teacher M Indira Gandhi and 13 others, and they had named Perlis, Malacca, Kedah, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Perak, Johor and the Federal Territories as defendants in the legal action.
They say that the states and Federal Territories are still practising unilateral conversion of minors into the Islamic faith via the relevant state enactments, namely:
- Section 117 of the Perlis Administration of Islam 2006 Enactment;
- Section 80 of the Kedah Administration of Islam 2008 Enactment;
- Section 105 of the Malacca Administration of Islam 2002 Enactment;
- Section 117 of the Negeri Sembilan Administration of Islam Enactment 2003;
- Section 103 of the Pahang Administration of Islam 1991 Enactment;
- Section 106 of the Perak Administration of Islam 2004 Enactment;
- Section 117 of the of the Johor Administration of Islam 2003 Enactment; and
- Section 95 of the Federal Territory Administration of Islam 1993 Act.
They claimed that the state enactments had breached Article 12 (4) of the Federal Constitution, wherein Article 12 stipulates there should be no discrimination of a person based on religion, race, descent and place of birth; and subsection 4 stipulates that the religion of person under the age of 18 shall be decided by the parent or guardian.
In 2018, the Federal Court in the Indira Gandhi case defined the word parent under Article 12 (4) to include both parents — meaning their permission is needed to determine the fate of their children’s conversion — after ruling that the word “parent” in Article 12 (4) means father and mother, and not father or mother.
The plaintiffs claimed that the enactments leading to unilateral conversion of minors are unconstitutional, and have led to the violation of their and every non-Muslim citizens rights in the country.
They further said that the civil court has jurisdiction to hear the matter pursuant to Article 121 of the Federal Constitution, wherein it has jurisdiction to review the actions of public authorities and interpretation of the relevant state and federal legislations, as well as the Constitution.
Indira Gandhi and the others further cited that Article 75 of the Constitution stipulates that if any state law is inconsistent with the federal law, the federal law shall prevail. They further allege that the state enactments are in breach of Article 12 (4) of the Constitution and hence, should be declared null and void.