Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdiction of syariah courts

Legal area

Court

23 Oct 2025

KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA 1. ) NIVETHAH A/P THAMAYANDIRAN 2. ) SWETHA A/P THAMAYANDIRAN

Citation

B-01(NCvC)(A)-72-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

B-01(NCvC)(A)-72-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Because the respondents' mother was a Muslim at the time of her birth (by virtue of her mother being Muslim), s2(1)(b) ARIE 2003 applies to make the mother a Muslim and therefore the respondents are Muslims at birth; s111 IFLE 2003 only disqualifies paternity and does not negate maternity ascription; the High Court's contrary finding was erroneous and must be set aside; any application for renunciation falls within Syariah Court jurisdiction under Article 121(1A) and ARIE 2003.
23 Oct 2025

MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR 1. ) NIVETHAH A/P THAMAYANDIRAN 2. ) SWETHA A/P THAMAYANDIRAN

Citation

B-01(NCvC)(A)-100-02/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

B-01(NCvC)(A)-100-02/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Section 2(1)(b) ARIE 2003 can apply to illegitimate persons but, where illegitimacy prevents ascription of paternity under s111 IFLE 2003, the word "parents" effectively refers to the mother; here the respondents' maternal lineage established their mother and grandmother were Muslims at relevant times, thus respondents were Muslims at birth under s2(1)(b); the reliefs sought in the Civil Court constituted renunciation claims (declarations that they are no longer Muslims) which fall within Syariah Court jurisdiction under Article 121(1A) and ARIE 2003, so the High Court's declarations were mad…
14 May 2024

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 Loh Siew Hong

Citation

08(f)-35-02/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

08(f)-35-02/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Leave to appeal was dismissed because apostasy falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts and the appellant had voluntarily submitted to that jurisdiction; binding precedents (Rosliza and Dahlia) mandated refusal of the federal leave application.
22 Aug 2022

MARIA CHIN BINTI ABDULLAH 1. ) PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA 2. ) MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR (MAWIP) 3. ) JABATAN KEHAKIMAN SYARIAH WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR

Citation

WA-25-73-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-73-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave granted because applicant demonstrated serious and arguable questions of law: whether s229 SCPA may be invoked by a private individual and whether Syariah Courts may interpret and apply federal statutes in ways that affect fundamental liberties; civil superior courts retain supervisory jurisdiction to determine such questions and the application was not premature as the Leave Order and Notice to Show Cause immediately and adversely affected the applicant.
13 Oct 2021

Maqsood Ahmad & 38 Yang Lain 1. ) Ketua Pegawai Penguatkuasa Agama 2. ) Pegawai Penyiasat, Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor 3. ) Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor 4. ) Ketua Pendakwa Syarie 5. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor

Citation

25-56-10/2015 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

25-56-10/2015 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence the court found Applicants No.1-4,6-9,11-26 and 37-39 are Ahmadis by origin (ab initio) and therefore are not persons professing Islam for purposes of the ARIE and are beyond the Syariah Courts' jurisdiction; Respondents' investigatory and prosecutorial acts against those Applicants were ultra vires and were quashed and prohibited. Applicants No.27-36 are persons who had formerly professed Islam and embraced Ahmadi teachings later; they remain within Syariah jurisdiction until they obtain Syariah Court orders to the contrary. Foreign adherents who were Ahmadi on entry were tre…
18 Aug 2021

WAN JOHAIRIZA BIN WAN AB RAHMAN 1. MAHKAMAH RAYUAN SYARIAH SELANGOR 2. KETUA HAKIM SYARIE SELANGOR 3. MASAYU BINTI MOHAMAD HUSAIN

Citation

WA-25-136-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-136-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for leave was dismissed because the subject matter challenged was a decision of the Selangor Syariah Appeal Court made within its jurisdiction and, by virtue of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution and binding authorities, is not amenable to judicial review by the civil High Court; the leave application was therefore frivolous and lacked an arguable case.
25 Feb 2021

IKI PUTRA BIN MUBARRAK 1.KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR 2.MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR

Citation

BKA-3-11/2019(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

W
Case number

BKA-3-11/2019(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Although the impugned provision is an offence against the precepts of Islam, in pith and substance it constitutes criminal law which falls within the Federal List; the State preclusion clause therefore precludes the State Legislature from enacting this offence and the impugned provision is ultra vires the Federal Constitution; only Parliament may legislate such offences.
25 Aug 2020

KETUA PEGAWAI PENGUATKUASA AGAMA & 4 LAGI MAQSOOD AHMAD & 38 LAGI

Citation

B-01(A)-468-07/2018 dan B-01(A)-513-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

B-01(A)-468-07/2018 dan B-01(A)-513-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Syariah Courts, not Magistrates' Courts, have jurisdiction to try offences under s97(2) ARIE 2003 because the provision concerns mosques and matters within the precepts of Islam under List II Item 1; however where a State-gazetted fatwa validly declares a group (here the Ahmadiyya in Selangor) non-Muslim, members of that group are outside Syariah jurisdiction; designation 'Islam' on MyKad is not conclusive proof of professed religion and the burden to prove one’s religious identity lies on the person asserting it; factual determination whether each respondent is Ahmadiyya by original faith or…
ABDUL KAHAR BIN AHMAD V. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ORS.

Citation

ABDUL KAHAR BIN AHMAD V. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ORS.
Court

Malaysian court

Article 121(1A) does not transfer exclusive power to interpret the Federal Constitution to Syariah Courts; the Federal Court, under article 128(1) and the Federal List (item 4(k)), retains exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether State Enactment provisions are within State legislative competence and constitutionally valid, therefore the motion to require the Syariah High Court to decide the Islamic-law question and to stay proceedings was dismissed.