PUTRAJAYA, Aug 24 — The Court of Appeal today dismissed Hindu mother M. Indira Gandhi’s appeal to reinstate her RM100 million lawsuit against the police and the Malaysian government over their failure to track down her youngest daughter, Prasana Diksa.
While dismissing the appeal, a three-member bench chaired by Datuk Mohamed Zaini Mazlan highlighted material deficiencies in police records concerning efforts to execute an arrest warrant against her fugitive former husband, K. Pathmanathan, also known as Muhammad Riduan Abdullah, NST reported.
Datuk Faizah Jamaludin and Datuk Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid also sat on the bench.
Delivering the unanimous decision, Faizah ruled that the available evidence failed to establish that any specific police omission directly prevented Pathmanathan’s arrest or the recovery of Prasana.
The appellate court held that the appellant was required to prove that the respondents’ inaction directly caused her loss, and that such loss would have likely been averted had proper measures been carried out.
The court maintained that private law damages cannot be granted simply to penalise administrative inadequacies.
“Private law damages compensate for loss caused by an actionable wrong. They are not a freestanding response to unsatisfactory administrative performance.
“The respondents did not cause the original taking or the initial separation,” Faizah said.
Turning to immigration records, Faizah pointed out that Pathmanathan’s last documented departure from Malaysia occurred on March 19, 2014, with no admissible records indicating if or when he re-entered the country.
“It remained possible that he returned by an unrecorded route or was later present in the country, but no admissible evidence established when or where that occurred.
“Possibility alone could not satisfy the balance of probability,” she said.
Even so, the appellate judges took issue with critical gaps in the evidence presented by the police regarding their execution of the arrest warrant.
“No contemporaneous command or direction issued by the then inspector-general of police (IGP) within the stipulated seven days was produced.
“Former IGP Tan Sri Hamid Bador accepted that the delay in issuing the nationwide directive was slow, indeed very slow,” Faizah noted.
The bench also flagged evidentiary gaps involving the now-disbanded Special Task Force on Organised Crime (STAFOC), citing a total lack of contemporaneous documentation detailing specific instructions, actions taken, and tangible results.
However, the judges clarified that procedural weaknesses in police documentation do not automatically render the entire investigation fabricated.
“We would also like to make it clear that nothing in these grounds should be understood as conferring a general immunity upon the police, or as suggesting that a failure to obey and execute lawful orders and warrants of the courts is legally inconsequential,” Faizah added.
Indira filed the suit on October 28, 2020, naming Abdul Hamid, the Royal Malaysia Police, the Home Ministry, and the government as respondents.
The lawsuit marked another chapter in Indira’s protracted, 17-year battle to find Prasana, who was taken by Pathmanathan in March 2009 after he unilaterally converted their three children to Islam. Prasana was only 11 months old at the time.
The Ipoh High Court granted Indira full custody, care, and control of the children on March 11, 2010, ordering Pathmanathan to surrender Prasana immediately.
On May 30, 2014, the High Court issued a committal order to imprison Pathmanathan until he purged his contempt by returning the child. The Federal Court subsequently ruled on April 29, 2016, that the IGP could not refuse to direct police officers to execute the committal warrant against him.
