What constitutional challenge is being raised against unilateral conversion laws?

Question

Accepted Answer

A Constitutional Challenge to Unilateral Conversion Laws

A legal challenge has been mounted against eight state and federal territory laws that permit the unilateral conversion of children to Islam. The core of this challenge asserts that these laws contravene the Federal Constitution, particularly Article 12(4), which mandates that the religion of a person under 18 years of age is to be determined by their "parent or guardian." This legal action seeks to have these enactments declared void and invalid for infringing upon constitutional provisions and established judicial interpretations.
Violation of Article 12(4) and the "Parents" Interpretation

The legal action specifically targets laws that allow for the conversion of a child to Islam with the consent of only one parent. This is argued to be in direct conflict with Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution. A significant precedent was set by a Federal Court decision in 2018, notably in the case of M. Indira Gandhi. This ruling interpreted the term "parent" in Article 12(4) to mean "parents" when both are alive, thereby requiring the consent of both parents for the religious conversion of a child from a civil marriage or a non-Muslim couple. The current lawsuit seeks to uphold this interpretation and apply it to the challenged state enactments.
Seeking Declarations on Unconstitutionality and Invalidity

The plaintiffs are seeking multiple declarations from the High Court. Firstly, they aim to have the laws enabling unilateral conversion declared unconstitutional and contrary to Article 12(4). Secondly, they are requesting that all unilateral conversions that occurred prior to the Federal Court's 2018 decision be declared void or invalid. As an alternative, they propose that any unilateral conversions occurring after the 2018 decision should require the consent of both parents, with a provision for reversal if consent is withheld within a year.
Specific Laws Under Scrutiny

The lawsuit explicitly names eight pieces of legislation from various states and federal territories. These include Section 117 of Perlis's Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment 2006, Section 80 of Kedah's Administration of Islamic Law Enactment 2008, Section 105 of Malacca's Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment 2002, Section 117 of Negeri Sembilan's Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment 2003, Section 103 of Pahang's Administration of Islamic Law Enactment 1991, Section 106 of Perak's Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment 2004, Section 117 of Johor's Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment 2003, and Section 95 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993. The argument is that these laws, by permitting conversion with only one parent's consent, breach Article 12(4) and potentially Articles 4(1) and 75 of the Federal Constitution, which establish the supremacy of the constitution and the precedence of federal law over inconsistent state law.
Impact on Non-Muslim Citizens' Rights

The plaintiffs contend that these laws have led to, and will continue to lead to, violations of the fundamental rights of non-Muslim citizens of Malaysia. Specifically, they highlight the potential for their children to be unilaterally converted to Islam, thereby impacting their religious freedom and familial rights. The lawsuit is presented as a defence of these fundamental liberties, challenging the constitutionality of the challenged legal provisions to prevent future infringements on the rights of non-Muslims. Case management for this significant legal challenge is underway, with further proceedings scheduled.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What constitutional challenge is being raised against unilateral conversion laws?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends