LINA JOY

MAJLIS WP
2017
SYAFIQAH HAMDAN
 facts Of Case
Appellant was a Malay woman born on 8 January 1964, brought up as a Muslim and her given name is
Azlina bte Jailani.

21 February 1997; 11 August 1997: October 1999: application for The High Court
applied to national Application change of name was rejected her
Registration was rejected by approved but her replaced application, as did
Department (NRD) NRD without identity card (IC) states that the Court of
to change her name her religion as Islam. Lina Appeal (in 2005)
any reason.
to Lina Lelani. Joy made an application to and Federal Court
2nd of Appeal (in
Statutory reason: she NRD office to remove the
Application: 2007).
had renounced statement “Islam” and her
name change original name from her
Islam for
Christianity as she to Lina Joy on replacement IC. Lina Joy did
intended to marry a 15 March 1999. not file an application with
Christian. the Sharia Court
 HELD
Court dismissed;
Article 11 of the FC speaks of freedom of religion but this did not mean
that the plaintiff was to be given the freedom of choice to profess
and practice the religion of her choice. .
Article 11(1) should be construed harmoniously with the other relevant
provisions on Islam, namely, art 3(1), 12(2), 74(2), 121(1A) and 160 (where a
Malay is defined as a person who professes the religion of Islam). The
declaration in art 3(1) has the consequence of qualifying a Muslim's
absolute right to murtad in art 11(1) by requiring the compliance to the
relevant syariah laws on apostasy enacted pursuant to art 74 List II
Plaintiff cannot hide behind the provision of art 11(1) of the FC without
first settling the issue of renunciation of her religion (Islam) with the
religious authority which has the right to manage its own religious
affairs under art 11(3)(a) of the FC.
 ISSUES
Whether NRD is entitled in law to impose a requirement for deleting the entry of
Islam in Lina Joy’s IC that she produce a certificate or a declaration or an order from
the Syariah court that she has apostatized?
Whether NRD has correctly construed its power under the National Registration
Regulations 1990, in particular reg. 4 and 14, to impose the requirement as stated
above when it is not expressly provided for in the Regulations?
Whether Soon Singh was rightly decided when it adopted the implied jurisdiction
theory propounded in Md Hakim Lee v. Majlis Agama [1997] 3 CLJ Supp 419 in
preference to Ng Wan Chan v Majlis Agama (No.2) [1991] 3 MLJ 487 and Lim Chan
Seng v Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam [1996] 3 CLJ 231, which declared that unless an
express jurisdiction is conferred on the Syariah Court, the civil courts will retain their
jurisdiction.
Ahmad Fairuz CJ: if NRD accepts one’s
declaration that he or she has converted out
from the religion of Islam, then NRD could run
the risk of wrongfully certify a person as non-
Muslim who in fact, according to the Islamic
laws, he or she is still a Muslim.

NRD made a correct decision not to remove

the statement “Islam” from a Muslim’s IC:
matters of converting out of the religion of
Islam is a matter related to Islamic laws. If the
Court rules that the decision made by NRD is
unreasonable, this would mean that the Court
wants the NRD to accept the facts that under
Islamic laws, a Muslim can be regarded as
converted out of Islam and is no longer a
Muslim when he says that he has been
converted out. This raises issues that it
contradicts Art 11.
1: NRD IS ENTITLED
A person desires to convert out of a religion
shall follow the practice, rules and
requirements as prescribed by that religion.
Only when all requirements for converting
out of Islam are followed and the relevant
authorities under the Islamic laws have
certified the apostasy, Lina Joy is
considered a non-Muslim, or a Christian in
her case.
2 : NRD IS RIGHT
Richard Malanjum FC: NRD had acted beyond the requirements
stated in the National Registration Regulations 1990. NRD
should consider Lina Joy’s application within the context of the
said regulations and should not bring in any extraneous factor.
Lina Joy claimed she had never professed or practiced Islam
since birth, she even embraced Christianity and had been
baptized.
It is not the function of NRD to ensure that Lina Joy has
properly apostatized as such matter should be left to the
relevant authorities.
Chief Justice took into account the public interest in reaching his
conclusion, if the Court permits Muslim to convert out of Islam at
his/her own wishes and fancies, the Muslim society would be in
chaos. In the circumstance, consideration of public interests
override individual interest.
 3: SOON SINGH CASE IS RIGHTLY DECIDED
Dr Cyrus Das; case wrongly decided. The case stated that the
Syariah Court’s jurisdiction derived from the State List described
in Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, it does not need to be
expressly granted by an Act of Legislatives. Soon Singh case fails
to differentiate between the power to make law on a subject
matter and the law enactment itself. The entries in the list are
merely heads or fields of legislation, which demarcate the area
over which the appropriate legislature can operates.

Ahmad Fairuz FCJ: disagreed with Cyrus; since Syariah Court has
been clearly given the jurisdiction to adjudge matters relating to
embracing Islam, it is only logic and by necessary implication, the
Syariah Court has jurisdiction to adjudge matters on conversion
out of Islam or apostasy
FIN