1. ) Pendaftar Mualaf Negeri Perlis 2. ) Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Istiadat Melayu Perlis 3. ) Dato' Arif Perkasa Dr. Mohd Asri bin Zainul Abidin (Disaman Sebagai Mufti Negeri Perlis) 4. ) Kerajaan Negeri Perlis v Loh Siew Hong

Case Significance

Confirms that the principle in Indira Gandhi requiring both parents' consent for the conversion of a minor is not confined to the Federal Territories, and refuses leave to appeal a decision in the mother's favour for want of a prima facie prospect of success.

This Federal Court decision concerns an application for leave to appeal in a dispute over the unilateral conversion of children to Islam, and the reach of the constitutional principles governing such conversions. The respondent, the mother of the children, had succeeded before the Court of Appeal, which had ruled in her favour on the validity of the children's conversion; the appellants — the State Registrar of Converts, the State Islamic Religious Council, the State Mufti (sued in that office) and the State Government — sought leave to appeal to the Federal Court. The proposed questions concerned section 117(b) of the State's Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment and whether the Federal Court's decision in Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak — which held that the consent of both parents is required for the conversion of a minor — was confined to the Federal Territories and did not apply to the State in question, as well as the significance of the English text of the Federal Constitution being authoritative and the effect of a certificate of conversion. The Federal Court examined the proposed questions against the threshold for leave and, applying Indira Gandhi, held that there was no prima facie case of success in the intended appeal. It accordingly dismissed the application for leave to appeal, with the effect that the Court of Appeal's decision in the mother's favour stood. The decision illustrates that the principle requiring the consent of both parents for the conversion of a minor, established in Indira Gandhi, is not confined to the Federal Territories, and that leave to appeal will be refused where the proposed questions disclose no prima facie prospect of success against that settled principle. The decision also reflects the gatekeeping function of the leave requirement at the apex court: where the intended appeal seeks to reopen a question already settled by binding authority, and discloses no prima facie prospect of success against that authority, the Federal Court will decline to grant leave rather than convene a full hearing to revisit a principle it has already laid down.