KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 23 — The High Court here today allowed the applications by the Federal Territory Islamic Religious Council (MAIWP) and the Johor Islamic Religious Council (MAIJ) to intervene in a suit filed by kindergarten teacher M. Indira Gandhi to challenge the state enactments that allows the unilateral conversion of children to Islam.

Judge Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid allowed the applications by both parties on the grounds that they had merit.

However, he dismissed the application by Badan Peguam Syarie Wilayah Persekutuan (BPSWP) to be an intervenor in the suit.

“After hearing the submissions of the parties involved and examining the cause papers filed in this case, the court found that the intervenor application by BPSWP was without merit.

“However, the applications by MAIWP and MAIJ had merit and the court allowed the applications without an order as to costs,” he said in the proceeding conducted online today.

The court also fixed November 20 for the case management through e-Review.

At today’s proceedings, MAIWP was represented by lawyers Datuk Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar and Danial Farhan Zainul Rijal, while lawyers Datuk Mohd Ikbal Salam and Mohamed Yasser Mohd Yasin represented MAIJ.

BPSWP was represented by lawyers Abdul Razak Muhidin and Nini Shirma Rahmat, and Indira Gandhi by lawyer Amanda Sonia Mathew.

On March 3 this year, Indira Gandhi and 13 others filed an originating summons (OS) seeking to nullify the state legislations of eight states that allowed the unilateral conversion of children to Islam.

The plaintiffs also included Pertubuhan Hindu Agamam Ani Malaysia, former chairman of Malaysia Hindu Sangam and Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) S. Mohan and Indira Gandhi Action Team chairman D. Arumugaman as well as several residents in the state concerned and victims of unilateral religious conversion.

They named the state governments of Perlis, Kedah, Melaka, Pahang, Perak, Johor, Negeri Sembilan and the Federal Territory as defendants.

The plaintiffs claimed that the state enactments had breached Article 12 (4) of the Federal Constitution, wherein 12 stipulates there should be no discrimination of a person based on religion, race, descent and place of birth; and sub-section (4) stipulates that the religion of a person under the age of 18 shall be decided by the parent or guardian.

They are requesting, among others, a declaration that the practice of unilateral religious conversion is unconstitutional and contrary to Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution.

The plaintiffs claimed that the enactments leading to the unilateral conversion of minors are unconstitutional, and have led to violation of their and every non-Muslim citizen’s rights in the country.

On January 29, 2018, the Federal Court ruled that the conversion of Indira’s three children to Islam by her ex-convert husband was null and void under the law. — Bernama