Lawyer Haniff Khatri Abdulla said leave ought to be given to the council as they were also an interested party.
“They will not be prejudiced if leave is given to MAIPs to be a party to vary the custody order given to the mother (Loh Siew Hong),” the lawyer said in his submission.
MAIPs is seeking to change the child custody terms given to Loh in a divorce petition last year so the council can provide Islamic education and training, and tithes to her 14-year-old twin daughters and 10-year-old son.
The council said it was doing so because the children were converted to Islam by their father in Perlis on July 7, 2020.
The names of the children cannot be mentioned nor their photographs be published due to a gag order issued by Judge Evrol Mariette Peters last month.
According to Haniff, MAIPs does have a direct legal interest to intervene because it has statutory duty to look after the wellbeing, education, and guidance of Muslims who converted to Islam in Perlis.
He said the children’s conversion is a subject matter before a judicial review proceeding in another court but in this court, MAIPs wants to be a party as it has a duty to take care of the welfare of the children.
Haniff said the children were prima facie Muslims and the Perlis state enactment allowed for unilateral conversion by a parent.
He also said Loh had impliedly waived her right to allow her husband M Nagashwaran to convert their children.
“She is a Buddhist but the children’s religious status in the birth certificates states they are Hindus. She has waived her right when the husband converted their children,” he added.
Loh and the children have been under media spotlight before and after the High Court in February allowed her habeas corpus application to regain custody of the children.
They were under the care of preacher Nazirah Nanthakumari Abdullah.
She has also filed for a declaration that a provision in the Perlis state enactment that allows for a parent to unilaterally convert minor children is unconstitutional.
She also wants a declaration that they are of the Hindu faith.
Meanwhile, Loh’s lead counsel A Srimurugan today submitted that the application by MAIPs is a non-starter because the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act only governed non-Muslim marriages.
“MAIPs has no locus standi in a civil court in its attempt to vary the custody order(which was finalised on March 31 last year) as the Act only applies to non-Muslim individuals,” he said
He said there was nothing for MAIPs to intervene as Loh and her ex-husband’s divorce was finalised and custody of the children given to her.
“The only interested parties who can come to court to vary the custody order are family members of the couple,” he said.
He said the ex-husband’s unilateral conversion of the children was illegal as it went against the 2018 Federal Court ruling in the case of M Indira Gandhi.
Lawyer Shamsher Singh Thind said Loh and her children would be prejudiced should MAIPs be given leave to argue that it could regulate the lives of the minors.
“They will once again be in the spotlight as social media will start reporting about them,” he said.
He said MAIPs should limit itself to providing assistance to Muslims born in Perlis.
“In our case, the children were born and raised in Kedah. They were only taken to Perlis to be converted,” he added.
Evrol reminded both parties after they had completed their submissions that this court was only concerned about the welfare and the rights of the children.
“It is not the question of the right of the mother or MAIPs. Keep religious issues out of this court,” Evrol said, adding that she will deliver her ruling on June 15.