5.

According to indira gandi case,the facts is muslim convert mughammad riduan

Abdullah converted the three children from his civil marriage with perak based hindu mother m
indira Gandhi to islam without their knowledge of concent in 2009, before he went to syariah
courts to obtain custody over them.Indira successfully challenged the unilateral conversion in the
high court. But the court of appealed ruled against her. Indira is not questioning the conversion
itself. But the process and legality of the conversion whether the registrar of muallaf complied
with perak state laws when registering and issuing certificates of conversion to her children.

The Federal court examined these questions of law, whether the civil courts have
exclusive jurisdiction and inherent jurisdiction to review the actions of a public authority.The
civil courts powers to review a public authority’s action s is a basic part of the federal
constitution that cannot be given such power as the constitutional safeguards for judiciary
independence do not apply to them.

About the civil courts, The Federation Constitution’S basic structure includes judicial
powers such as judicial review,the principles of separation of powers,rule of law,protection of
minorities.parliament cannot remove such features by amendingthe constitution.

The Federal constitution’ article 121 (1) vests judicial power exclusively in the civil
courts.Judicial powers-including judicial review or the review of public authorities actions and
decisions-cannot be removed from the civil courts ,and cannot be given to any other body who
do not have the same level of constitutional protection as civil judges to safeguards their
independence.

About the syariah courts, unlike the civil courts that are established by and entrenced in
the federal constitution,syariah courts only come into existence when the state legislatures make
state laws to establish them. It is evident from the marked differences in the establishment and
constitution of the civil and syariah courts that the two courts operate on a different footing
altogether. Syariah courts ijurisdiction are limited which is syariah courts may not exercise the
civil courts inherent judicial powers, including the power of judicial review. Syariah courts are
not given the power to review administrative decisions of public authorities.Indira, as a non-
muslim,has no legal standing to appear before the syariah courts and the syariah courts have no
jurisdiction to choose to hear indira’s case.

About the Federal constitution’s Article 121 (1A) says civil courts shall have no
jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction to interpet the constitution or
law,including those relating to judicial review ? Article 121 (1A) does not remove the civil
courts jurisdiction to interpet the constitution or laws even when the matter is related to Islamic
law.

Indira’s children were not present before the registrar and did not the affirmation of faith
as required under the perak state law.( At the time of conversion,The children were aged 11,10
and over 11 months old) since the legal requirements under section 96 and 106 (b) were not
fulfilled and not complied with the registrar had no jurisdiction to issue the certificates of
conversion for Indira’s children.He had acted beyond his powers.

Islamic principles require a muslim convert to consult their non muslim spouse before
changing their childrens religion, and for both parents to have the right to be heard by a single
competent authority .The muslim convert should allow the children and non converting spouse to
be drawn to islam without coercion .whether the mother and father (if both are still surviving)
must consent before a certificate of conversion to islam can be issued for a child from their civil
marriage ?

The certificates of conversion of Indira’s children to islam are invalid because they were
issued without indira’s consent, which violated the Federal constitution’s Article 12 (4) and
guardianship of infants Act which says a parent or guardian shall decide the religion of a person
under the age 18 for matters such as religions instruction.

Consent must be from both parents for best interests of the child, who will be subject to new and
different set of personal laws when the religion is changed.