Lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar said his client’s purported conversion, which took place in May 1991, was prohibited by a then prevailing enactment which barred the conversion of children to Islam.
He pointed out that a subsequent amendment and by-law were passed in September that year, stipulating that the conversion of children could only be effected with the consent of both parents.
“It is not disputed that her (late) father’s consent was never sought.
“Based on the said conversion form of the state government, it is apparent that the (Selangor Islamic) religious department (Jais) was aware that she had a father at the time,” Malik added.
The woman, who originally professed the Hindu faith, was still a child when she was converted to Islam by her mother.
Born in 1986, she said the conversion took place in 1991 at Jais’s office while her parents were in the midst of a divorce, which was finalised a year later.
Her mother went on to marry a Muslim man in 1993. Her father died in an accident three years later.
The woman contended that despite her conversion to Islam, her mother and stepfather allowed her to continue practising the Hindu faith, which she was born into.
Malik said that since her conversion was wrong from the start, the shariah courts had no jurisdiction against her.
He pointed out that in such cases the subject’s religious status should be decided by the civil courts.
The hearing before a three-judge panel led by Court of Appeal president Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim will continue on a date to be fixed later.
Other judges who sat with him were Justices Mary Lim and Abu Bakar Jais.
Lawyers Haniff Khatri Abdulla and Majdah Muda appeared for the Selangor Islamic religious council (Mais), while state legal adviser Salim Soib @ Hamid represented the Selangor government.
In 2021, the Shah Alam High Court granted the woman a declaration that she was not of the Muslim faith.
However, Mais succeeded in getting the Court of Appeal to reinstate her religious status as a Muslim.
In a majority ruling, Justices Yaacob Sam and Nazlan Ghazali ruled that the civil courts had no jurisdiction to hear cases involving the renunciation of religion.
Justice Ravinthran Paramaguru dissented.