The Court of Appeal has struck out a suit filed by a man seeking a declaration that he is a Sikh and had never professed Islam, ruling that the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the shariah court.
A three-member bench led by Justice Firuz Jaffril unanimously allowed an appeal by the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Council (MAIWP) and the government, finding that the civil court had no jurisdiction to hear Shehzad Malik Sarwar Malik’s challenge to his religious status.
Firuz, sitting with Justices Faizah Jamaludin and Meor Hashimi Abdul Hamid, said official documents showed that Shehzad was born in 1996 to parents who had voluntarily embraced Islam.
In his broad grounds of judgment, Firuz said Shehzad had come to court knowing that the documents recorded him as having been born a Muslim under Section 2 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993 (Act 505).
The provision sets out who is regarded as a Muslim under the Act.
Firuz said the documents also legally identified Shehzad as a person professing Islam.
“Given the facts, this can be construed as renunciation and the case falls within the jurisdiction of the shariah court,” he said.
He added that the Court of Appeal was bound by the Federal Constitution and existing judicial precedents.
“The respondent could not come to the civil court as it did not have the jurisdiction to grant the orders sought,” Firuz said.
The bench, however, made no order as to costs against Shehzad.
Shehzad’s Challenge
Shehzad filed an originating summons in December 2023 seeking a declaration that he was a practising Sikh and had never professed Islam.
He said that although his parents were Muslims when he was born in June 1996, his late mother had raised him as a Sikh.
Following his mother’s death in 2007, Shehzad said he was raised by his maternal uncle, who also practised Sikhism.
He also sought an order compelling the National Registration Department to amend his religious status from Islam to Sikhism and change his name from Shehzad Malik bin Muhammad Sarwar Malik to Bilawal Singh Bhutter.
MAIWP argued that a Muslim mother could not convert her Muslim child to Sikhism, while the government maintained that Shehzad had identified himself as a Muslim when applying for his identity card.
The High Court last year dismissed applications by MAIWP and the government to strike out the suit, finding that there were triable issues that should be determined at trial.
However, MAIWP appealed the decision.
Parties Present Their Arguments
Before the Court of Appeal, MAIWP lawyer Ahmad Kamal Abu Bakar, assisted by Arik Zakri Abdul Kadir, argued that Shehzad’s civil suit was unsustainable and should be struck out.
He maintained that Shehzad’s remedy lay with the shariah court.
Senior federal counsel Husniyyah Hanapi supported the submission, pointing to Shehzad’s birth certificate and identity card, both of which recorded him as a Muslim.
However, Shehzad’s lawyer Sachpreetraj Singh, assisted by Amanda Sonia Mathew, argued that a trial was necessary to establish whether his client had ever been a Muslim in the first place.
He described the case as an ab initio challenge, meaning Shehzad’s position was that he had never been a Muslim from the outset.
“That is why we are here in the civil court, because it is our position that this is an ab initio case,” he said.
