Announcing the apex court’s unanimous decision, Chief Judge of Malaya, Hasnah Hashim, said the state government had not met the threshold set by Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules 1995.
“We find no merit in the review application as there is no miscarriage of justice,” said Hasnah, who sat with Justices Nordin Hassan and Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera.
The bench did not order costs as the matter involved an issue of public interest.
Lawyer Haniff Khatri Abdulla represented the state government while counsel A Srimurugan acted for Loh, who was present in court.
In seeking the review, the state government contended that its right to be heard had been severely compromised during an application for leave to appeal a Court of Appeal decision which declared the conversion of Loh’s children to Islam unlawful.
The state government wanted the Federal Court to rehear the leave application.
Loh opposed the review bid, saying it was tantamount to an abuse of the court process.
Loh’s children were unilaterally converted to Islam by her former husband, Muhammad Nagahswaran Muniandy, in Perlis in 2020.
She took the matter to the High Court, seeking a declaration that the conversions violated Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution. The High Court dismissed her application and upheld the conversions.
However, on Jan 10 last year, the Court of Appeal overturned that decision, holding that the conversions had run afoul of Article 12(4). In its decision, the Court of Appeal relied on a landmark 2018 Federal Court ruling in the case of M Indira Gandhi.
The state government then applied to the Federal Court for leave to appeal.
On May 14, 2024, the Federal Court rejected the leave application. Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat said there was no reason for the apex court to revisit Indira’s case as it remained good law.
In Indira’s case, the Federal Court had declared that the conversion of minors made by one parent without the consent of the other, known as a unilateral conversion, violated Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution.
Article 12(4) states that the religion of children below 18 years old shall be determined by their parent or guardian. The apex court ruled that the term “parent” in that provision must be interpreted to refer to both parents of the child in question.