Lawyer Nizam Bashir said there is no indication of another adjournment as the apex court registry did not communicate to him that the case had been vacated.
“The matter will very likely go on,” he told FMT.
On the last two occasions, the case was taken off the list as lawyer Sulaiman Abdullah, representing the Johor Islamic religious council, was not well.
Chief Judge of Malaya Azahar Mohamed, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak David Wong Dak Wah, Federal Court judges Mohamed Zawawi Salleh, Rohana Yusof, Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, Idrus Harun, Nallini Pathmanathan and Vernon Ong Lam Keat could feature in the panel.
Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat and Federal Court judge Abdul Rahman Sebli will be excluded as both heard the appeal in 2017 as Court of Appeal judges.
Court of Appeal president Ahmad Maarop is also unlikely to be on the bench as he will retire next week.
However, Tengku Maimun has also the option to pick judges from the Court of Appeal to hear the case as this is provided for under Article 122 (2) of the Federal Constitution.
On Feb 7 last year, a five-member bench chaired by then-chief justice Raus Sharif heard the appeal but adjourned its decision.
Others on the bench were Ahmad, Hasan Lah, Aziah Ali and Balia Yusof Wahi. All except Ahmad have since retired.
Under Section 78 (2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, a minimum of two judges are required to deliver a judgment of the Federal Court.
The central issue before the apex court is whether Section 13 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 (BDRA) applies only to non-Muslims.
The second issue is whether the surname applies to the patronym, that is the father’s name.
The Federal Court was also asked to decide whether a decree on the naming of children by the National Fatwa Council is binding on the National Registration Department (JPN) and whether the civil or shariah court should determine the naming of a Muslim child.
According to a 1981 fatwa, illegitimate children must carry the surname of “bin Abdullah” or “binti Abdullah”.
A fatwa in 2003 ruled that illegitimate children cannot carry the name of the father or the person claiming to be the father.
In 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that the JPN director-general’s jurisdiction is a civil one and confined to determining whether the child’s parents fulfil the requirements under the BDRA.
Rahman, who delivered the judgment, said the BDRA, as a federal law, covers all illegitimate children, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
In the present case, the child was born less than six months after the parents’ marriage, which is considered illegitimate under shariah law.
The child’s birth was registered two years later in 2011 under Section 12 of BDRA.
The parents, both of whom are from Johor, applied to JPN under Section 13 of the BDRA to have the father’s name on the birth certificate.
However, the document carries the name “bin Abdullah” instead.
JPN refused to replace this with the father’s name on grounds that the child was illegitimate.
The parents, whose identities have been withheld, filed an application for judicial review at the High Court in 2016.
They lost their case in the High Court, but the decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal.