ROSLIZA IBRAHIM v. KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR & ANOR

[2021] 2 MLRA 70
Federal Court, Putrajaya
Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ, Rohana Yusuf PCA, Azahar Mohamed CJM, Nallini Pathmanathan, Abdul Rahman Sebli, Zabariah Mohd Yusof, Hasnah Mohammed Hashim, Mary Lim Thiam Suan, Rhodzariah Bujang FCJJ
[Civil Appeal No: 01(f)-2-01-2020(B)]
Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ, Rohana Yusuf PCA, Azahar Mohamed CJM, Nallini Pathmanathan, Abdul Rahman Sebli, Zabariah Mohd Yusof, Hasnah Mohammed Hashim, Mary Lim Thiam Suan, Rhodzariah Bujang FCJJ

JUDGMENT

Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ:

Introduction

[1] The dispute between Rosliza binti Ibrahim ('the appellant/plaintiff'), who was raised as a Buddhist by her Buddhist mother (as averred to by the mother with no averment to the contrary by the father), and Kerajaan Negeri Selangor and Majlis Agama Islam Negeri Selangor, ('the respondents/defendants'), as aptly stated by the 2nd respondent in its written submission dated 15 September 2020, pertains to whether an illegitimate child whose mother is not a person professing the religion of Islam, is not subject to 'Muslim law' (and hence not subject to the jurisdiction of Syariah Courts).

[2] The issue herein is similar to Azmi Mohamad Azam v. Director Of Jabatan Agama Islam Sarawak & Ors [2016] 2 MLRH 533; [2016] 6 CLJ 562 ('Azmi'). Azmi will be referred to in detail in the later part of this judgment. Suffice to state at this juncture that Azmi's case was ultimately resolved by consent, where the National Registration Department ('NRD') removed the word 'Islam' from his National Registration Identity Card ('identity card').

[3] The appellant/plaintiff failed in the courts below in her bid to seek recourse from the civil court. On 20 January 2020, this court granted the appellant/ plaintiff leave to appeal on the following two questions of law:

"1. Where the subject matter of a cause or matter requires a determination of "whether a person is or is not a Muslim" under the law rather than "whether a person is no longer a Muslim" whether the High Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the said subject matter on a proper interpretation of art 121 and Item 1 of the State List of the Federal Constitution ('FC')?; and

2. In light of reg 24(1) of the National Registration Regulations 1990 and where the truth of the contents of any written application for registration of an identity card or the contents of an identity card is not proven by affidavit or at trial, whether the said contents can be considered facts proved for a declaration of status under s 41 of the Specific Relief Act 1950?".

Sign up to view full cases Login