Judicial Commissioner S Raja Segaran said the central issue was whether the case of Indira Gandhi Mutho v. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & Ors, decided in 2018, could invalidate a conversion registered nine years earlier.
In that case, the Federal Court ruled that the conversion of a minor with the consent of only one parent — known as a “unilateral conversion” — was invalid, as it contravened Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution.
Then Federeal Court judge Zainun Ali, delivering the unanimous decision of a five-member bench, said that the term “parent” in Article 12(4) must be read to mean both parents provided they retain legal rights to the child.
“Indira Gandhi expressly directed that its decision was to have prospective effect. That direction is binding and must be applied,” Raja Segaran said in his 74-page judgment.
“It means that the consequences of Indira Gandhi for the formal validity of registered conversions are confined to conversions registered after the date of the decision.
“Pre-2018 conversions are not invalidated by the dual-parent rule, regardless of whether both parents formally consented”
Raja Segaran was presiding over a case brought by a 28-year-old woman seeking court declarations that she professed the Hindu faith and that her conversion to Islam as a child was void ab initio (from the outset).
Born out of wedlock to Hindu parents, she said her mother — who embraced Islam in 2005 — converted her at age 11 four years later, without her father’s consent.
The woman claimed she was coerced into converting and lacked a proper understanding of Islam, having been raised in a Hindu environment where she attended temples and took part in Hindu ceremonies.
The court, however, found her conversion process to be “statutorily valid on its face” under Sections 95, 100 and 105 of the Melaka Islamic Administration Enactment 2002.
Allegations of coercion were rejected, with Raja Segaran noting contradictions between her mother’s 2025 affidavit and a statutory declaration made in 2009.
Raja Segaran also found that the woman was not able to prove she had never professed Islam.
He said there was a constitutional distinction between “professing” and “practising” Islam, and that practising Hinduism did not automatically negate professing Islam, particularly where official records and her conduct as an adult showed otherwise.
As a result, Raja Segaran declined to direct the defendants — the Melaka Islamic religious council, the state government, and the director-general of the national registration department — to make amendments to the woman’s name or religious status in their official records.
He, however, refused to award the defendants costs.
“The court is mindful that excessive costs orders may discourage bona fide legal recourse in cases involving genuine questions of constitutional identity and jurisdiction,” the judgment read.
Although affirming Indira Gandhi’s case as binding precedent, Raja Segaran said it had left several observed unresolved constitutional questions surrounding Article 12(4), including:
- whether the framers’ use of the singular “parent” was intended to differ from “parents”;
- whether the Bahasa Malaysia text “ibu atau bapanya atau penjaganya” carries constitutional significance under Article 160B; an
- whether decades of state enactments using “mother, father or guardian” reflected the prevailing understanding of Article 12(4).
Lawyers Pavitra Loganathan and Darshela Hari Raja represented the woman, Nazri Hamid appeared for the council, while senior federal counsel Norafiah Saini and Khairul Azreem Mamat acted for the state government.