PUTRAJAYA, Jan 6 — A Selangor-born woman today failed in her final attempt at the Federal Court to seek a court declaration that she is not a Muslim.

Federal Court judge Datuk Zabariah Mohd Yusof, who chaired a three-judge panel, dismissed the 38-year-old woman’s application to review an earlier Federal Court decision.

“We unanimously dismiss the application in both cases with no order as to costs,” she said after the Federal Court heard the case today.

The other two judges on the panel are Datuk Rhodzariah Bujang and Datuk Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera.

This woman, identified only as D to protect her privacy, was born in Selangor to a Hindu father and a Buddhist mother.

The mother later converted herself and D, then four years’ old, to Islam without the father’s knowledge or consent.

Previously, D told the courts she was born a Hindu and had only professed and practised the Hindu religion.

D also said she was never a Muslim, had never converted to Islam and had never uttered the “kalimah syahadah” (the declaration of faith required to convert to Islam).

D has spent 11 years — since age 27 — going to the courts to seek a declaration that she is not a Muslim, as she just wanted to be officially recorded as not a Muslim.

This all started from when she tried at the age of 25 in 2011 to have the label “Islam” removed from her identity card to reflect her religious identity to be a non-Muslim.

But the National Registration Department rejected her application for the removal of the “Islam” label, and the Shariah courts also rejected her bid to be confirmed as a non-Muslim, which then led to her efforts in the civil courts to be recognised as not a Muslim.

D in December 2021 won a High Court order that declared her as “not a person professing the religion of Islam”.

But the Court of Appeal in a 2-1 decision in January 2023 restored D’s official religious status as a Muslim, and the Federal Court in a 2-1 decision in May 2024 agreed that D should remain officially known as a Muslim.

In May 2024, two Federal Court judges — President of the Court of Appeal Tan Sri Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim and Datuk Abu Bakar Jais — had written two separate judgments for the majority decision which ruled D as a Muslim, while then Federal Court judge Datuk Mary Lim Thiam Suan had dissented.

All three Federal Court judges in May 2024 had concluded that the unilateral conversion of D to Islam in Selangor at age four was invalid, as the law in Selangor then did not allow conversion of children.

The minority or dissenting judge said that D remains as a non-Muslim as she had never converted to Islam by uttering the “kalimah syahadah” or affirmation of faith, but the majority decision said D is factually a Muslim.

D had wanted the Federal Court’s panel today to review the majority decision made by the two judges in May 2024 against her, but the Federal Court’s rejection of her review application means that her official religious status remains as a Muslim now.

What did the Federal Court say today?

The Federal Court today did not agree with D’s review application, where D had claimed that the May 2024’s majority decision had infringed the law and had breached the rules of natural justice.

D had argued that the May 2024 majority decision goes against the Federal Constitution’s Article 11(1) on the right to religious freedom, saying that the way the majority decision had applied the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993’s Section 2 meant an individual can be considered a Muslim without his or her consent.

Earlier today, D’s lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar argued that Section 2 which was only on the definition of the word “Muslim” should not override other provisions (Section 107 to Section 111) in the same 1993 law which require a person to utter the “kalimah syahadah” to be validly converted to Islam, and that D had never uttered it even as an adult.

But the Federal Court today disagreed that the majority decision had infringed the law, and said the majority decision was only interpreting the law based on the facts in D’s case, and that this would not be an “exceptional” circumstance that would be a ground for review.

The Federal Court said that Abang Iskandar’s majority judgment had read Section 2 holistically with other provisions in the same 1993 law on conversion to Islam, and also said a review of that majority decision is not justified based on just “mere differences in interpretation of the law”.

“Even if we disagree with that interpretation, it is not a ground for review. This may be revisited in future cases,” the Federal Court said today.

As for D’s argument that she was not given an opportunity to be heard on key points in the majority decision which was used to decide that her status is Muslim, the Federal Court today said the previous panel did ask lawyers to speak on Section 2 and other issues like freedom of religion and the majority decision’s approach was supported by legal authorities.

Zabariah today also said the previous Federal Court panel had decided D’s status based on facts, and not just purely on the law.

“It is not for this court to consider whether the earlier panel had or had not made a correct decision on the facts. That is a matter of opinion,” she said.

Referring to a 2008 Federal Court decision on the principles to be applied when the Federal Court exercises its powers to review a previous case, Zabariah said: “The principle of finality in litigation must be upheld.”

“After deliberating on the submissions of all parties — both oral and written — we are not satisfied that this is a case that falls within the limited grounds of exceptional circumstance in which a review can be made,” she said, before concluding the Federal Court’s unanimous decision to dismiss D’s review bid.

D’s review bid was made via applications which had separately named the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais) and the Selangor state government, with the latter two opposing her review application.

Today, D was represented by lawyers Surendra Ananth and Wong Ming Yen.

Mais was represented by lawyeres Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla and Majdah Muda, while the Selangor state government was represented by state legal adviser Datuk Salim Soib @ Hamid, assistant state legal advisers Hani Aziza Ismail @ Aziz and Husna Abdul Halim.

Lawyers who held a watching brief for the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) today were Lim Heng Seng, Joshua Wu Kai-Ming and Jason Koh Wei Siong.

Recommended reading