Authored By: Lydia Natasya Binti Mohamad Najib
The case of Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & Ors [2018] 1 MLJ 545 is widely recognized as a watershed moment in Malaysian constitutional law, particularly concerning constitutional supremacy, the separation of civil and Syariah jurisdictions, and the rights of non-Muslim parents in matters of religious conversion of children. This case set a legal precedent regarding the interpretation of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution and the extent of judicial review in matters involving administrative decisions made by religious authorities. At the heart of the case was the question of whether one parent could unilaterally convert a child to Islam without the consent of the other, as well as the extent to which civil courts could intervene in matters relating to Islamic administration. In this case, the Federal Court’s ruling not only reinforced the role of judicial review in upholding constitutional rights but also clarified the boundaries between civil and Syariah courts in Malaysia.
Indira Gandhi, a Hindu mother, was married to Pathmanathan a/l Krishnan under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA)[1]. Throughout the marriage, the couple was blessed with three children[2]. In 2009, Pathmanathan converted to Islam[3] and adopted the name Muhammad Riduan Abdullah[4]. Following his conversion, he obtained an ex parte custody order for all three children from the Syariah Court[5]. He then proceeded to unilaterally convert the children to Islam without the consent or knowledge of Indira Gandhi6. The Registrar of Muallafs also issued conversion certificates for the children based on the father’s application[6], despite the fact that the children did not personally recite the kalimah syahadah[7], a mandatory requirement under Section 96 of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004.
Upon learning that her children had been converted to Islam, Indira Gandhi filed a judicial review application in the High Court, seeking to challenge the validity of their conversion certificates. She contended that the conversion was in violation of the Federal Constitution and the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 (GIA)[8]. The High Court ruled in her favor, quashing the conversion certificates and granting her full custody of the children[9]. However, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s ruling, stating that the civil court lacked jurisdiction over matters of Islamic conversion, which fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Syariah Court[10]. Indira subsequently appealed to the Federal Court, leading to a significant ruling in Malaysian constitutional law.
The primary legal issue in this case included whether the civil courts had jurisdiction to review the administrative decision of the Registrar of Muallafs, or if such matters fell
exclusively under Syariah Court jurisdiction per Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution[11]. Another critical issue was whether the unilateral conversion of minor children was legally valid considering the procedural requirements under Sections 96 and 106 of the Perak Enactment13. Additionally, the question of parental consent was crucial, specifically whether Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which states that the religion of a person under the age of eighteen is determined by their “parent or guardian,” should be interpreted as requiring the consent of both parents rather than just one[12].
The appellant contended that Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution does not remove the High Court’s general jurisdiction nor expand the Syariah Court’s powers. Instead, it merely prevents civil courts from interfering in lawful Syariah Court decisions. Since the Registrar of Muallafs was performing an administrative function, the appellant argued that the case involved judicial review, which falls within the civil courts’ domain.[13] Furthermore, the appellant asserted that Syariah Courts, created under state law in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, are limited in jurisdiction and cannot decide on matters involving nonMuslims.[14]
On the issue of conversion validity, the appellant argued that Sections 96 and 106 of the Perak Enactment must be followed together. The procedural requirements were not satisfied as the children were not present during the conversion, making the registrar’s actions ultra vires. The appellant also claimed that Section 101(2), which states that a conversion certificate is conclusive proof of conversion, only applies if the certificate was issued lawfully. Since the registrar acted outside his legal authority, the court had jurisdiction to review and quash the certificates.[15]
Regarding parental consent, the appellant insisted on a purposive interpretation of Article 12(4), arguing that “parent” should be read in plural form, requiring both parents’ consent. The Eleventh Schedule of the Federal Constitution provides that singular words include the plural unless stated otherwise. Additionally, the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 supports equal parental rights, reinforcing the need for joint consent.[16]
The respondents argued that the conversion fell solely under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court[17], as conversion to Islam is a religious matter[18]. They maintained that Article 121(1A) bars civil courts from interfering with Islamic legal matters, including conversions, which should be determined by the Syariah Court21. Furthermore, the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment gives the Syariah Court jurisdiction over a person’s Islamic status, making it the proper legal avenue for the appellant’s challenge[19].
On the validity of the conversion, the respondents argued that Section 106(b) of the Perak Enactment, which allows a minor’s conversion with the consent of one parent, overrides Section 96. They contended that the registrar acted within his powers in issuing the conversion certificates. Section 101(2) was also cited to claim that once a certificate of conversion is issued, it serves as conclusive proof of the conversion, and challenging it would infringe upon the Syariah Court’s authority.[20]
Regarding parental consent, the respondents maintained that Article 12(4) uses “parent” in the singular form, meaning that the consent of one parent suffices[21]. They also highlighted that the Malay version of the Constitution uses “ibu atau bapa,” which translates to “mother or father,” supporting the argument that either parent can decide[22]. Additionally, they argued that the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 does not apply to Muslims and should not be used to require joint parental consent in conversion cases[23].
4.0 Court’s Decision & Reasoning
The Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision and reinstated the High Court’s ruling. It reaffirmed the judicial power of the civil courts under Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution, holding that such power cannot be removed or restricted by legislative amendments[24]. The court emphasized that the Syariah Courts, being creatures of state law, did not have the inherent judicial power to decide on constitutional matters, particularly those involving non-Muslims[25], as held in Latifah Mat Zin v Rosmawati Sharibun & Anor [2007] 5 MLJ 101.
The court also highlights the importance of judicial review as an essential feature of the Constitution’s basic structure. It cited Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat [2017] 3 MLJ 561, which held that judicial review is a fundamental part of constitutional governance[26] and cannot be removed by legislative amendments[27]. The Federal Court reiterated that administrative actions, including those of the Registrar of Muallafs, must comply with statutory and constitutional requirements and that courts have the power to review such actions to ensure they do not exceed legal limits[28]. This principle was also emphasized in Pengarah Tanah dan Galian, WP v Sri Lempah Enterprise Sdn Bhd [1979] 1 MLJ 135, where Raja Azlan Shah Ag CJ held that every legal power must have legal limits and that courts serve as a check against executive overreach[29].
The court further clarified that the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts is confined to matters expressly provided for under state law and applies only to Muslims. Since Indira Gandhi, a non-Muslim, was affected by the conversion, the Syariah Court had no jurisdiction over the matter[30]. The court reaffirmed the principle established in Subashini Rajasingam v Saravanan Thangathoray [2008] 2 MLJ 147, which held that the Syariah Courts have no jurisdiction over non-Muslims. The decision reinforced that Syariah Court jurisdiction must be expressly conferred by state legislation, and its powers cannot extend to non-Muslims unless explicitly provided for in the law[31].
The court also found that the conversion of Indira’s children violated Sections 96 and 106 of the Perak Enactment[32], which required the individual converting to Islam to recite the syahadah in the presence of a religious officer[33]. The evidence demonstrated that Indira’s children had never personally recited the syahadah[34], making their conversion null and void[35]. This ruling aligns with Dalip Kaur v Pegawai Polis Daerah, Balai Polis Daerah, Bukit Mertajam & Anor [1992] 1 MLJ 1, where the court held that conversion must follow proper procedures[36].
Lastly, the Federal Court has also adopted a purposive interpretation of Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, ruling that “parent” should be read as “both parents” in cases where both are alive and have legal rights over the child[37]. The court referenced Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 (GIA), Sections 5 and 11, which provide for equal parental rights[38], to justify this position. This interpretation was also consistent with the ruling in Teoh Eng Huat v Kadhi, Pasir Mas, Kelantan [1990] 2 MLJ 300. Consequently, the unilateral conversion by the father was held unconstitutional.
5.0 Critical Analysis & Conclusion
The Federal Court’s landmark decision in Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & Ors [2018] establishes crucial constitutional principles regarding religious conversion of minors and jurisdiction in Malaysia’s dual legal system. By interpreting “parent” in Article 12(4) to mean both parents in civil marriages, the court prevented unilateral conversion decisions that could circumvent civil family law provisions[39].
In my opinion, this interpretation represents judicial wisdom, as it prevents power imbalances in interfaith marriages where one parent might otherwise use religious conversion as a litigation tactic. The court’s purposive approach to constitutional interpretation considers family unity rather than enabling jurisdictional manipulation through religious conversion.
As recently emphasized by Malaysia’s Chief Justice, this case “is about family, not faith”[40], appropriately framing it within family law rather than religious conflict. This characterization helps depoliticize what has often been misrepresented as an attack on religious authority.
Most significantly, the court clarified that civil courts retain jurisdiction over constitutional matters, even when they involve religious dimensions. As Faruqi argues, this reinforces constitutional supremacy while respecting Shariah courts’ authority within their prescribed domain[41]. The court carefully distinguished between matters of Islamic law interpretation (which remain within Shariah courts’ domain) and constitutional questions (which civil courts must address).
The Malaysian Bar has also emphasized that this jurisdictional clarity is essential for maintaining separation of powers, calling for authorities to “enforce the pronouncement of the Federal Court without delay”[42]. This position emphasizes the institutional importance of the decision for Malaysia’s constitutional framework.
The court’s consideration of children’s welfare demonstrates a commitment to childcentric jurisprudence, aligning with Kasim’s argument that “the law should protect the rights of vulnerable children caught between warring parents and not allow religion to be weaponized in custody battles”[43]. In my view, this approach appropriately recognizes children as individuals with rights rather than extensions of their parents’ religious identities.
Despite these sound legal principles, Indira Gandhi’s ongoing struggle to locate her daughter[44] highlights implementation challenges. This gap between judicial pronouncement and practical enforcement reveals systemic issues in Malaysia’s legal framework that extend beyond this specific case.
The Indira Gandhi case establishes a balanced approach to the religious conversion of minors that prioritizes parental equality, children’s welfare, and constitutional supremacy. By requiring the consent of both parents for a child’s religious conversion, the court prevents religion from being used as a weapon in custody disputes while honoring the legitimate authority of religious institutions within their appropriate realm.
The decision’s clarification of jurisdictional boundaries between civil and Shariah courts reinforces constitutional supremacy while acknowledging Islam’s special position in Malaysia. This careful balancing act demonstrates that religious freedom and constitutional rights can coexist harmoniously in Malaysia’s multicultural society.
I believe this landmark case represents a triumph of judicial wisdom that provides a framework for resolving similar conflicts in the future. The decision affirms that Malaysia’s strength lies in its commitment to both religious values and constitutional principles; a delicate balance that requires ongoing dialogue, mutual respect, and thoughtful jurisprudence.
As the Chief Justice’s recent reframing of the case suggests, focusing on family welfare rather than religious competition offers a path forward for similar cases. However, the ongoing enforcement challenges highlight that legal principles alone are insufficient without corresponding institutional commitment to implementation.
Free Malaysia Today. (2022, September 21). Cops still looking for Muhammad Riduan Abdullah. Retrieved from
https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2022/09/21/cops–still–lookingfor–muhammad–riduan–abdullah/
Free Malaysia Today. (2024, May 28). Indira Gandhi frustrated with lack of progress in locating daughter. Retrieved from
https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2024/05/28/indira–gandhifrustrated–with–lack–of–progress–in–locating–daughter/
Free Malaysia Today. (2025, January 21). Indira thanks CJ for saying her case is about family, not faith. Retrieved from
https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2025/01/21/indira–thanks–cj–forsaying–her–case–is–about–family–not–faith/
Kasim, S. (2022, February 21). A response to the Perlis Mufti on unilateral child conversions. Malaysia Now. Retrieved from https://www.malaysianow.com/opinion/2022/02/21/aresponse–to–the–perlis–mufti–on–unilateral–child–conversions
Malay Mail. (2018, February 1). Simplified: The Federal Court’s groundbreaking Indira Gandhi judgment. Malay Mail. Retrieved from
https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2018/02/01/simplified–the–federal–courtsgroundbreaking–indira–gandhi–judgment/1567409
Malaysian Bar. (2023). Press release: Respect separation of powers, enforce pronouncement of the Federal Court in the Indira Gandhi case without delay. Retrieved from https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/article/news/press–statements/press–
statements/press–release–respect–separation–of–powers–enforce–pronouncement–of–thefederal–court–in–the–indira–gandhi–case–without–delay Wu, J. (2022). A brief summary of the Indira Gandhi saga.
Retrieved from https://joshuawu.my/a–brief–summary–of–the–indira–gandhi–saga/ Faruqi, S. S. (2020). Constitutional supremacy: Theory versus reality. ISIS Malaysia. Retrieved from https://www.isis.org.my/2020/03/20/constitutional–supremacy–theoryversus–reality–no–2–of–a–series–of–essays–by–the–tun–hussein–onn–chair–ininternational–studies–2/
[1] Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & Ors, [2018] 1 MLJ 545,559
[2] Ibid.,[13]
[3] Ibid.,[14]
[4] Free Malaysia Today, Cops still looking for Muhammad Riduan Abdullah, (September 21, 2022), https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2022/09/21/cops–still–looking–for–muhammad–riduan–abdullah/
[5] Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & Ors, [2018] 1 MLJ 545,559 6 Ibid.,[15]
[6] Ibid.
[7] Malay Mail. (2018, February 1). Simplified: The Federal Court’s groundbreaking Indira Gandhi judgment. Malay Mail.
https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2018/02/01/simplified–the–federal–courts–groundbreaking–indira–gandhijudgment/1567409
[8] Ibid.,[16]
[9] Ibid.,[17]
[10] Ibid.,[22]
[11] Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & Ors, [2018] 1 MLJ 545,561 13 Ibid.,590
[12] Ibid.,599
[13] Ibid.,561
[14] Ibid.,[24]
[15] Ibid.,590
[16] Ibid.,599
[17] Ibid.,[25]
[18] Ibid.,[26] 21 Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.,591
[21] Ibid.,600
[22] Ibid.,601
[23] Ibid.,[147]
[24] Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & Ors, [2018] 1 MLJ 545, [92]
[25] Ibid., [75]
[26] Ibid., [42]
[27] Ibid., [53]
[28] Ibid., [107]
[29] Ibid.,[33]
[30] Ibid., [109]
[31] Ibid.,[62]
[32] Ibid., [131]
[33] Ibid.,[130]
[34] Ibid., [131]
[35] Ibid.,[132]
[36] Ibid.,[100]
[37] Ibid.,[164]
[38] Ibid.,[181]
[39] Wu, J. (2022). “A Brief Summary of the Indira Gandhi Saga.” Joshua Wu.
[40] Free Malaysia Today. (2025, January 21). “Indira thanks CJ for saying her case is about family, not faith.” https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2025/01/21/indira-thanks-cj-for-saying-her-case-is-about-family-not-faith/
[41] Faruqi, S. S. (2020). “Constitutional Supremacy: Theory versus Reality.” ISIS Malaysia.
[42] Malaysian Bar. (2023). “Press Release: Respect Separation of Powers, Enforce Pronouncement of the Federal Court in the Indira Gandhi Case Without Delay.” https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/article/news/press-statements/press-statements/pressrelease-respect-separation-of-powers-enforce-pronouncement-of-the-federal-court-in-the-indira-gandhi-case-without-delay
[43] Kasim, S. (2022, February 21). “A Response to the Perlis Mufti on Unilateral Child Conversions.” Malaysian Now. https://www.malaysianow.com/opinion/2022/02/21/a-response-to-the-perlis-mufti-on-unilateral-child-conversions
[44] Free Malaysia Today. (2024, May 28). “Indira Gandhi frustrated with lack of progress in locating daughter.” https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2024/05/28/indira-gandhi-frustrated-with-lack-of-progress-in-locatingdaughter/
Congratulations 🎉