The decision of the Federal court on Deepa is though comforting, is actually disappointing overall.
While I praise the Federal Court on its ruling that the civil courts has jurisdiction in Deepa’s matter, it also left many issues unresolved. Matters such as whether her daughter of whom she has obtained custody (who was unilaterally converted to Islam as a minor by her ex husband), can now practice her original faith of Hinduism and whether she and her daughter requires to go through another stressful process of renouncing the conversion and which court will have jurisdiction and etc.
In any event, given the current provisions of the amended Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution, I hold the view that this Article which was amended in such a hasty and impetuous manner by the government is the main cause that has attributed to several anomalous cases in Malaysia, in the likes of Indira Ghandi, Deepa and others. It appears that notwithstanding the latest Fed Court decision in Deepa, there is no guarantee that another Syariah Court will not do the same as the earlier Syariah court did in Deepa and in others.
This amended Article 121 (1A) clearly does not bind the Syariah Courts of the decision of the Civil Courts notwithstanding that the Fed Court is the highest civil court of the land. Even the Federal Attorney General has no control over the Syariah courts.
Hence, until suitable amendments are made by the Govt, the provisions in the Constitution will stand as it is – wherein the Syariah Court are a fully independent entity on their own and I foresee similar recurrences of more Indiras and Deepas. Further, in fairness and in accordance to the current constitutional provisions, the Syariah courts remain at liberty to rule in any manner they deem fit.