Muhammad Ridzuan Bin M Subramaniam v Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (Mais) (BA-24NCvC-1808-08/2025)

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA SAMAN PEMULA NO.: BA-24NCVC-1808-08/2025 Dalam perkara status Muhammad Ridzuan Bin M Subramaniam (No. K/P: 771220-10-5345); Dan Dalam perkara semua undang-undang yang digubal oleh Badan Perundangan Negeri Selangor menurut Jadual Kesembilan Senarai II Item 1 Perlembagaan Persekutuan, khususnya Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam (Negeri Selangor) 2003; Dan Dalam perkara Akta Kehakiman Mahkamah 1964, termasuk seksyen-seksyen 23, 25, 84 dan Bahagian 1

Jadual Akta Kehakiman Mahkamah 1964; 08/06/2026 23:11:05 BA-24NCvC-1808-08/2025 Kand. 32 **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Dan Dalam perkara Perlembagaan Persekutuan, termasuk Perkara 11; Dan Dalam perkara Akta Relif Spesifik 1950, termasuk seksyen-seksyen 41 dan 44 Akta Relif Spesifik 1950; Dan Dalam perkara Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, termasuk Aturan 5 kaedah-kaedah 3 dan 4, Aturan 7, Aturan 15 Kaedah-Kaedah 12 dan 16 dan Aturan 28 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; Dan Dalam perkara bidang kuasa sedia ada Mahkamah yang Mulia ini. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 ANTARA MUHAMMAD RIDZUAN BIN M SUBRAMANIAM … PLAINTIFF (No. K/P: 771220-10-5345) DAN 1. MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR 2. KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR 3. KETUA PENGARAH, JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA, MALAYSIA … DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT A. INTRODUCTION 1. This is a judgment concerning the declaratory and mandamus orders sought by the Plaintiff. 2. The Plaintiff claimed that he was unaware of his conversion to Islam and stated that he no longer practises Islamic teachings. 3. He now seeks an order declaring him a Hindu. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 B. PRELIMINARIES 4. In this Originating Summons (“OS”), the Plaintiff seeks the following reliefs: (a) a declaration that the Plaintiff’s religion is, and always has been, Hindu; (b) a declaration that, as a result, the Plaintiff is entitled to have an identity card issued and/or reissued by the Third Defendant in recognition of the above facts; (c) a declaration that all laws enacted by the Second Defendant’s Legislature in accordance with Item 1 of List II in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, in particular the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003, do not apply to the Plaintiff or affect the Plaintiff; (d) an order of mandamus to order the Third Defendant to issue and/or reissue the identity card to the Plaintiff, deleting and/or removing the word “Islam” from the Plaintiff's identity card and/or giving effect to the above declarations; **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 (e) an order of mandamus to order the Third Defendant to issue and/or reissue an identity card to the Plaintiff, changing the Plaintiff’s name from Muhammad Ridzuan Bin M Subramaniam to the Plaintiff’s original name, i.e. Suresh a/l M Subramaniam, and/or giving effect to the above declarations; (f) cost; and (g) other reliefs that this Honourable Court considers appropriate, proper, just, and within its inherent jurisdiction. C. BACKGROUND FACTS Part 1-The Plaintiff Was Originally A Hindu 5. The Plaintiff was previously known as Suresh a/l M Subramaniam. 6. He was born and raised a Hindu. 7. His deceased parents, M. Subramaniam and M. Pachiamah, were also Hindus. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 8. On 22 July 1999, he married Letchumy a/p Muniandy, and they have three children, all of whom are Hindus. Part 2-The Plaintiff Converted To Islam 9. On 3 January 2020, the Plaintiff recited the ‘Syahadah’ in Arabic and understood its meaning in Bahasa Malaysia: ‘Aku bersaksi bahawa tiada Tuhan yang disembah melainkan Allah dan aku bersaksi bahawa Nabi Muhammad itu pesuruh Allah’ 10. On 6 January 2020, the Plaintiff’s conversion to Islam was officially recorded. 11. He became a Muslim at the age of 43. Part 3-Renunciation Attempt 12. On 28 February 2022, the Plaintiff filed a renunciation application at the Selangor Syariah High Court under Section 61(3)(b)(x) of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 for a declaration that he was no longer a Muslim (“Selangor Syariah High Court Proceedings”). **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 13. On 10 March 2025, the Plaintiff withdrew the Selangor Syariah High Court Proceedings. Part 4-OS 14. On 7 August 2025, the Plaintiff filed this OS. D. ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED 15. Before addressing the reliefs sought in the OS, I must first determine whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear it. E. ANALYSIS 16. The Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff contended that the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff in the OS, including the assertion that he was a Hindu at all material times, fall within this Court’s jurisdiction. 17. The Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff also contended that this Court has jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the OS on the following grounds: (a) the OS is an ab initio case, not a renunciation case; **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 (b) due to his psychiatric condition, the Plaintiff was unaware of his conversion to Islam. He only realised he had become a Muslim several months later; (c) based on a preliminary objection raised by the First Defendant in another case involving different parties, the Syariah Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear his declaration that he is no longer a Muslim; (d) although he recited the ‘Syahadah’ in Arabic, he did not understand its meaning; and (e) the Plaintiff no longer practices as a Muslim. 18. I am unable to agree with the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff for the reasons set out below. Reason No.1: The Plaintiff Understood The ‘Syahadah’ 19. The Plaintiff recited the ‘Syahadah’ in Arabic. 20. The Plaintiff’s understanding of the ‘Syahadah’ in Bahasa Malaysia is evidenced by several documents. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 21. The first document is the checklist form dated 3 January 2020 (“Checklist Form”). 22. There are eleven items in the Checklist Form. 23. Mohd Zainuddin Bin Abdullah, the Pegawai Dakwah at PERKIM Bahagian Negeri Selangor, explained to the Plaintiff that he must first complete all 11 items on the Checklist Form before converting to Islam. 24. One of the items in the Checklist Form is the requirement to recite the ‘Syahadah’ in Arabic and to understand its meaning in Bahasa Malaysia: “Aku bersaksi bahawa tiada Tuhan yang disembah melainkan Allah dan aku bersaksi bahawa Nabi Muhammad itu pesuruh Allah.” 25. The Plaintiff understood Mohd Zainuddin Bin Abdullah’s explanation of all eleven items in the Checklist Form. 26. Subsequently, the Plaintiff signed the Checklist Form and affixed his thumbprint. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 27. The second document is the ‘Borang Pengisytiharan Dan Pendaftaran Memeluk Agama Islam’ dated 3 January 2020 (“Conversion Declaration Form”). 28. Regarding the Conversion Declaration Form: (a) the Plaintiff signed and affixed his thumbprint on the Conversion Declaration Form; (b) the Plaintiff stated that his conversion to Islam was done voluntarily, without any coercion. He wrote the following words in his own handwriting: “Tiada paksaan daripada mana-mana pihak. Saya dengan rela hati memeluk Agama Islam” (c) the Plaintiff not only confirmed that he recited the ‘Syahadah’ in Arabic, being aware of its meaning in Bahasa Malaysia, but he also provided the following declaration and undertakings: “Bahawasanya dengan suci hati dan dengan kehendak hati sendiri, tiada kerana dipaksa atau dipujuk, hanya dengan petunjuk Allah, saya/kami berikrar dan mengisytiharkan: **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 1. Saya/kami mengakui bahawa tiada Tuhan yang berhak disembah melainkan ALLAH, dan saya/kami bersaksi bahawa Nabi Muhammad adalah utusan ALLAH. 2. Bahawa saya/kami adalah seorang beragama Islam selama-lamanya. 3. Bahawa saya/kami tidak sekali-kali akan keluar daripada agama Islam. 4. Bahawa saya/kami akan berpegang teguh dan patuh dengan ajaran Islam hingga ke akhir hayat saya. 5. Bahawa saya/kami mengamanahkan MAIS menguruskan jenazah saya setelah saya meninggal dunia. 6. Bahawa saya/kami mengaku perkara-perkara yang tersebut dalam borang ini adalah benar dan saya/kami sedar bahawa saya/kami tertakluk kepada Hukum Syarak, peraturan-peraturan dan undang-undang yang sedang berkuat kuasa. Dengan ini, saya/kami memohon untuk didaftarkan pengislaman saya/kami dalam Daftar Muallaf Negeri Selangor” **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 (d) Mohamad Romzi Bin Abdullah Sani, the Pendaftar Muallaf of the Majlis Agama Islam Negeri Selangor, confirmed that the Plaintiff’s conversion to Islam was voluntary and made the following remarks: “Setelah memberi penerangan tentang Iman, Islam dan Ihsan beliau bersetuju untuk memeluk agama Islam dengan kerelaan hati sendiri.” Reason No.2: Complete Conversion Documentation 29. The Plaintiff’s conversion to Islam is well documented. 30. First, the Checklist Form. 31. Second, the Conversion Declaration Form. 32. Third, the Plaintiff secured a letter dated 6 January 2020 from the First Defendant to confirm his conversion to Islam (“MAIS’ Conversion Confirmation Letter”). 33. Fourth, on 30 January 2020, the Plaintiff made a statutory declaration (“SD”) confirming that he had converted to Islam. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 34. Fifth, following his conversion to Islam, the Plaintiff received a one-off Zakat contribution of RM500.00 (“Zakat Contribution”) from Lembaga Zakat Selangor on 30 January 2020, as stated in Lembaga Zakat Selangor’s letter dated 11 September 2025 (“Zakat Letter”). 35. Sixth, the Plaintiff voluntarily submitted a formal application dated 30 January 2020 to the Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (“JPN”) to request a change of his name and other details, including his conversion to Islam (“JPN Application Form”). 36. Seventh, the Plaintiff secured a letter dated 6 March 2020 from JPN approving his application to change his name from Suresh a/l M Subramaniam to the Muslim name of Muhammad Ridzuan Bin M Subramaniam (“JPN’s Approval Letter To Change Name”) 37. Eighth, the Plaintiff received a conversion identity card from the First Defendant confirming his Muslim status (“Conversion Identity Card”). **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 Reason No.3: Conversion Documents Not Challenged 38. The Plaintiff never challenged the authenticity and contents of the Checklist Form, Declaration Conversion Form, SD, MAIS’ Conversion Confirmation Letter, Zakat Letter, JPN’s Application Form, JPN’s Approval Letter To Change Name and Conversion Identity Card. Reason No.4: Zakat Contribution Received 39. After his conversion to Islam, the Plaintiff received the Zakat Contribution without any protest. Reason No.5: The Plaintiff Was Aware Of His Conversion To Islam 40. All the Checklist Form, Declaration Conversion Form, SD, MAIS’ Conversion Confirmation Letter, Zakat Letter, JPN’s Application Form, JPN’s Approval Letter To Change Name and Conversion Identity Card show that the Plaintiff was fully aware of his conversion to Islam. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 Reason No.6: No Coercion Or Duress 41. There is no affidavit by the individuals who witnessed the Plaintiff’s conversion to Islam that the Plaintiff was under duress or coercion when he recited the ‘Syahadah’. 42. There is no affidavit by the individuals who witnessed the Plaintiff’s conversion to Islam that the Plaintiff did not know the meaning of ‘Syahadah’ in Bahasa Malaysia: “Aku bersaksi bahawa tiada Tuhan yang disembah melainkan Allah dan aku bersaksi bahawa Nabi Muhammad itu pesuruh Allah.” 43. As mentioned earlier, an explanation of the eleven items was provided before the Plaintiff recited the ‘Syahadah’. 44. All the Checklist Form, Declaration Conversion Form, SD, MAIS’ Conversion Confirmation Letter, Zakat Letter, JPN’s Application Form, JPN’s Approval Letter To Change Name and Conversion Identity Card confirm that the Plaintiff’s conversion to Islam was not made under duress or coercion. 45. If the Plaintiff had been subjected to duress or coercion, which is not the situation in this case, he would not have submitted his application to JPN to amend his identity card details from Hindu to Muslim and to accept the Zakat Contribution. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 46. In short, the Plaintiff has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he was under duress or coercion when he converted to Islam. Reason No.7: No Mental Health Issue Raised Prior To Conversion 47. Before converting to Islam, the Plaintiff neither disclosed nor submitted any documents to Pertubuhan Kebajikan Islam Malaysia (“PERKIM”) or the First Defendant, suggesting that he had a mental health concern. 48. To raise this issue now is an afterthought on the part of the Plaintiff. Reason No.8: Submitted To The Jurisdiction Of Syariah Court 49. If the Plaintiff had consistently denied being unaware of his conversion to Islam, he would not have initiated the Selangor Syariah High Court Proceedings prior to filing this OS, and he would not have sought a declaration that he was no longer a Muslim in the Selangor Syariah High Court Proceedings. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 50. In paragraph 34 of his Affidavit in Support (Enclosure 2), the Plaintiff asserted that: “Hanya pada 28.2.2022 akhirnya, selepas PKP yang tamat dan bersambung-sambung, saya dapat memfailkan tindakan “pengisytiharan bukan lagi seorang Islam” di Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Selangor (“Tindakan Terdahulu”) melalui Puan Azlina sebagai peguam syarie saya.” [Emphasis added] 51. By commencing the Selangor Syariah High Court Proceedings, the Plaintiff submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Selangor Syariah High Court. Reason No.9: Twelve Counselling Sessions (“Istitabah”) 52. In addition to commencing the Selangor Syariah High Court Proceedings, the Plaintiff also agreed to undertake twelve counselling/Istitabah sessions aimed at repentance and the continued practice of Islamic teachings. 53. The Plaintiff’s agreement to undergo the twelve counselling/Istitabah sessions was recorded in the Order dated 22 June 2023 made by the Selangor Syariah High Court (“Counselling Order”): **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 54. In paragraph 35 of his Affidavit in Support (Enclosure 2), the Plaintiff also asserted that: “Proses di Mahkamah Syariah bagi Tindakan Terdahulu saya telah berjalan dengan dengan sangat lama – hampir 4 tahun – dan saya juga telah mengikuti proses “istitabah” iaitu proses kaunseling atas permohonan Defendan Pertama sebanyak 12 kali. Proses istitabah telah selesai pada 7.3.2024.” [Emphasis added] 55. It is pertinent to note that not only did the Plaintiff opt not to file any appeal to the Selangor Syariah Appeal Court against the Counselling Order, but he also complied with it by attending all twelve counselling/Istitabah sessions. 56. By complying with the Counselling Order and attending all twelve counselling/Istitabah sessions, the Plaintiff has again confirmed that he is a Muslim. Reason No.10: Preliminary Objection For An Ab Initio Case 57. The Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff argued that the Plaintiff had to withdraw the Selangor Syariah High Court proceedings after the First Defendant raised a preliminary objection in a separate case involving Tee Wee Jing and the First Defendant, under the Selangor Syariah High Court Application No.: 2408- H0110-483-0502 (“Tee Wee Jing’s Case”), on the ground that **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 the Syariah High Court did not have jurisdiction to determine a Muslim’s status. 58. I disagree with the argument of the Learned Counsel of the Plaintiff for the following reasons: (a) first, this Court is bound by the decision of the Federal Court in Rosliza Ibrahim v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Anor [2021] 3 CLJ 301; (b) second, in Tee Wee Jing’s Case, the First Defendant impugned Tee Wee Jing’s conversion to Islam for being incomplete and improper. Unlike Tee Wee Jing’s Case, the facts in this OS are different. Here, all the Defendants did not challenge the Plaintiff’s conversion to Islam; (c) third, in this case, the Plaintiff’s cause of action in the Selangor Syariah High Court Proceedings was that the Plaintiff was no longer a Muslim. In Tee Wee Jing’s Case, the Learned Syariah High Court judge upheld the preliminary objection because the cause of action in Tee Wee Jing’s case was that Tee Wee Jing was never a Muslim; **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 (d) fourth, the First Defendant did not raise any formal preliminary objection in the Selangor Syariah High Court Proceedings that the Syariah Court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter; (e) fifth, the Plaintiff withdrew the Selangor Syariah High Court Proceedings before the First Defendant could even raise a formal jurisdictional issue in that matter; and (f) sixth, all the Defendants in this OS have confirmed that the Syariah High Court has the jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the Plaintiff’s renunciation case. Reason No.11: Delay, Laches And Acquiescence 59. The reliefs sought by the Plaintiff in the OS are also barred by delay, laches, and acquiescence for the following reasons: (a) the Plaintiff filed this OS five years after his conversion to Islam; **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 (b) the Plaintiff filed this OS five years after receiving the Zakat Contribution; (c) the Plaintiff filed this OS five years after legally changing his name to Muhammad Ridzuan Bin M Subramaniam; (d) the Plaintiff filed this OS five years after obtaining a new identity card indicating his Muslim faith; (e) before filing this OS, the Plaintiff commenced the Selangor Syariah High Court Proceedings 2 years after his conversion to Islam to get a declaration that he was no longer a Muslim; and (f) before filing this OS, the Plaintiff agreed to the Counselling Order 3 years after his conversion to Islam to attend twelve counselling/Istitabah sessions aimed at repentance and the continued practice of Islamic teachings. He attended and completed all 12 counselling/Istitabah sessions. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 Reason No.12: Syariah Court’s Jurisdiction Is Not Ousted 60. The Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff’s argument that this Court has jurisdiction to hear the OS simply because the Plaintiff no longer practices Islamic teachings is also devoid of merit for the reasons set out below. 61. Item 1 of the State List under the Federal Constitution uses the word ‘professing’ instead of ‘practising’. 62. In Rosliza Ibrahim v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Anor [2021] 3 CLJ 301, the Federal Court held that: “[108] … It is only in renunciation cases where one already professes or proclaims to profess the religion of Islam (irrespective of whether they actually practise the faith) with the subsequent decision to change what they profess, that the matter is removed to the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court.” 63. As long as the Plaintiff has professed the religion of Islam, which he has done so in this case, his allegation that he is no longer practising as a Muslim does not oust the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 Reason No. 13: Renunciation Case 64. In Rosliza Ibrahim v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Anor [2021] 3 CLJ 301, the Federal Court has made a clear distinction between the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts and the Syariah Courts in ab initio and renunciation cases, as follows: (a) ab initio cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts; and (b) renunciation cases fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Syariah Court pursuant to Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution. 65. In this case, the factual matrix and documentary evidence show that the Plaintiff voluntarily converted to Islam, recited the ‘Syahadah’ in Arabic, and understood its meaning in Bahasa Malaysia: “Aku bersaksi bahawa tiada Tuhan yang disembah melainkan Allah dan aku bersaksi bahawa Nabi Muhammad itu pesuruh Allah.” 66. As alluded to earlier, there is no evidence from the individuals who witnessed the Plaintiff’s conversion to Islam that the Plaintiff was unaware of the conversion or was subjected to duress or coercion before the conversion. **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 67. Following his conversion to Islam, the Plaintiff was not only a recipient of the Zakat Contribution but also had his name legally changed under the strict procedures established by JPN, from Suresh a/l M Subramaniam to Muhammad Ridzuan Bin M Subramaniam. 68. Through this OS, the Plaintiff is seeking to renounce his faith in Islam. 69. Renouncing Islam would be an ‘offence against the precepts’ of Islam (Rosliza Ibrahim v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Anor [2021] 3 CLJ 301). 70. It is my finding that the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff in the OS are of the nature of a renunciation case, not an ab initio case. 71. Since this is a renunciation case, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff (Dahlia Dhaima Abdullah v Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (MAIS) & Another Appeal [2024] 4 MLRA 453). **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 CONCLUSION 72. For the foregoing reasons, Enclosure 1 is dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 to each Defendant as agreed by the parties, subject to the allocatur fee. Dated this 8th day of June 2026 SGD HELMI BIN HAMZAH JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM NEGERI SELANGOR **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 Counsel for the Plaintiff : Mr. Muhammad Asyraf Bin Azni (Mr. Muhammad Zulhilmi Zahin, Mr. Aizat Lukman, Madam Nur Hidayah Binti Mat & Madam Nurul Atiqah Binti Shahruddin) (Messrs Asyraf & Co) Counsel for the 1st Defendant : Mr. Abdul Razak Bin Muhidin (Madam Nini Shirma Binti Rahmat) (Messrs Abdul Razak Muhidin & Associates) Counsel for the 2nd Defendant : ALA Mr. Mohd Khairuddin Bin Idris (Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor) Counsel for the 3rd Defendant : FC Ms. Sheryn Yong Shi Yee (Jabatan Peguam Negara) **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal