“There is no prima facie case of success in the appeal, and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed,” Justice Nallini Pathmanathan said in her grounds of judgment delivered on Monday.

The motion had been filed by the Perlis Islamic religious and Malay customs council (MAIPs), its registrar of converts, state mufti Asri Zainul Abidin and the state government.

Delivering the unanimous judgment of the court, Nallini noted that the crux of the appeal which the applicants intended to bring revolved around the correctness and applicability of the apex court’s decision in M Indira Gandhi’s case seven years ago.

“(The case of) Indira Gandhi held that the consent of both parents is constitutionally required in order for the conversion of a minor to be legally valid.

“In other words, where a minor has been unilaterally converted (i.e. by one parent without the consent of the other), the conversion is void and must be set aside,” the judge said.

Nallini said the applicants’ arguments, if accepted by the court, would in effect reverse the Federal Court’s decision in Indira Gandhi’s case and “encourage the unconstitutional practice of unilateral conversion to persist”.

“Indeed, we remind ourselves of (now retired Federal Court judge) Zainun Ali’s prescient reminder in Indira Gandhi that unilateral conversion, in all its forms, will be unjustifiably detrimental to the welfare of the child,” the judgment read.

Nallini said Indira Gandhi’s case was decided based on a “purposive” reading of Article 12(4) of the constitution which provides that the religion of a person under the age of 18 years shall be decided by his “parent”.

In that case, the apex court ruled that ”parent” in Article 12(4) referred to both parents, not either of them. In coming to its decision, the court applied Article 160 of the constitution which states that words described in the singular may include the plural.

Nallini said both the “logic and precedential weight” of Indira Gandhi’s case were “unassailable”.

“This is demonstrated by the express and implied affirmation of Indira Gandhi by our apex court (in five subsequent cases). There can be no argument of any merit that it was decided per incuriam (i.e. in disregard of the law),” she added.

The judge dismissed the applicants’ contention, premised on the Bahasa Malaysia text of the constitution, that unilateral conversions are permissible under the law.

“The authoritative text of the constitution is the English version. As explained in Indira Gandhi, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has not prescribed the Bahasa Malaysia translation as authoritative, as required by Article 160B of the Federal Constitution.”

The judge also threw out the applicants’ contention that the ruling in Indira Gandhi’s case should be restricted to the federal territories.

“We see no basis for this as the Federal Court judgment in Indira Gandhi is, as is the case for all Federal Court judgments, binding throughout the nation,” she said.

Nallini also said the legal principles enunciated by the apex court in Indira Gandhi’s case applied with equal force to Loh’s case as the core facts in both were identical.

“As succinctly explained by the Court of Appeal, three minors were converted with the consent of only one parent; therefore, Indira Gandhi applies such that the conversions are ab initio null and void,” the judgment read.

Nallini also reaffirmed the Federal Court’s position that the civil courts have jurisdiction to review actions of public authorities which touch on the constitution and statutory interpretation.

“A decision made by the shariah courts outside their jurisdiction can be set aside by the civil courts,” she said.

On May 24 last year, a three-judge panel, chaired by Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat and comprising Nallini and Justice Abu Bakar Jais, heard and dismissed the applicants’ motion for leave to appeal.

“There is no reason to revisit the (Indira Gandhi) case,” Tengku Maimun said when dismissing the motion.

The applicants want the Federal Court to review that decision pursuant to Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules 1995.

They claim their right to be heard was “severely compromised” as submissions made on their behalf were either entirely disregarded or not sufficiently considered by the apex court.

The application is fixed for hearing on April 8.

Loh married to M Nagahswaran in 2008, when both professed the Hindu religion. Their marriage was solemnised under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976.

They had three children — twin girls born in 2008, and a son three years later.

Between March 2019 and February 2022, Loh was separated from her children after she was physically abused by Nagahswaran and forced to leave their matrimonial home.

In December 2019, Loh filed for divorce. One month later, she obtained an interim court order granting her sole guardianship, care, and control of the three children. However, Nagahswaran refused to comply with the order.

On July 7, 2020, Nagahswaran converted to Islam. He also attempted to convert his three children.

On Loh’s inquiry, MAIPs confirmed that the three children had been converted with the consent of their father pursuant to Section 117(b) of the Perlis Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment which, they claimed, allows for unilateral conversions.

Loh failed to set aside the conversion of the three minors in the High Court, but succeeded in having them quashed in the Court of Appeal.

Following the decision, her twin girls, now aged 17, and son, aged 14, remain Hindus.