A summary of the case and related events of Kaliammal Sinnasamy v Islamic Religious Affairs Council of the Federal Territory, Director Kuala Lumpur General Hospital & Government of Malaysia

Press Statement

The MCCBCHS is very disappointed at the failure of Madam Kaliammal to get relief from the Kuala Lumpur High Court in Originating Summons No. R1-24-102-2005 in the case of Kaliammal Sinnasamy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & 2 Ors.

The High Court refused to grant an application by the Hindu wife of the late Corporal M Moorthy, a hero of the Mount Everest climb several years ago, that her late husband was a Hindu at the time of his death. 

The High Court’s main reason for this decision was because the Kuala Lumpur Syariah Court, on the application of the Islamic Affairs Council of Kuala Lumpur, had decided that Moorthy had validly converted to Islam. This ruling by the Syariah Court was made in the absence of Kaliammah, without notice to her and in a court applying Islamic law in which she cannot be a party and does not have a proper right to be heard as a witness. 

The MCCBCHS is deeply concerned that lawyers representing the Federal Government did not make any argument supporting the Hindu wife despite the fact that she had absolutely no knowledge about the alleged conversion of her husband until he went into a coma. 

In fact, Senior Federal Counsel for the Federal Government conceded that the wife had no legal remedy in any court.

We call on the government to urgently cure this grave defect in our legal system by making the necessary amendments to the Federal Constitution and all other legislation so that jurisdiction to determine the validity of conversions into and out of Islam are vested in the High Court where all Malaysians can be parties and have equal rights as witnesses. 

Corporal Moorthy’s status as a Muslim was challenged on the basis that he did not profess Islam at the time of his death. 

The MCCBCHS is of the view that it is wrong for the Syariah Courts to have assumed jurisdiction over persons who do not profess Islam, and where its orders directly affect the rights of family members of a person, all of whom do not profess Islam.

The civil High Court should be able to grant relief after considering the interests of all the parties affected.

Dated this 28th day of December 2005