KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court has, in a landmark ruling, affirmed that individuals may take legal action against their fellow citizens for breaches of constitutional rights – choosing to follow the later of two conflicting Federal Court decisions.
Justice Amarjeet Singh ruled that preacher Firdaus Wong had infringed the constitutional rights of eight non-Muslim parents in a video posted on social media that encouraged the covert conversion of their minor children.
In his decision, Amarjeet relied on the apex court’s ruling in Shamala Sathiyaseelan v Dr Jeyaganesh C Mogarajah (2011), which involved a dispute between spouses over the alleged infringement of their respective constitutional rights.
“The principles that stand out are that: If one citizen has a right under the Federal Constitution, there exists a correlative duty on the part of the other citizens to respect that right and not to interfere with it, bearing in mind that constitutional rights are sacrosanct, it is expected that they must be religiously safeguarded,” the judge said in a 21-page judgment delivered last month.
Lawyer Norazali Nordin, who appeared for Firdaus, had opposed the application, arguing that a breach of the constitution does not give rise to a cause of action by one citizen against another.
He had sought to rely on the Federal Court’s 2005 ruling in Beatrice Fernandez v Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia & Ors, which held that constitutional rights could only be enforced against the legislature or the executive, and not private individuals.
However, Amarjeet ruled that the parents, the plaintiffs in the suit, had locus standi to bring the action not only in their personal capacity but also by way of public interest litigation.
“I hold that the plaintiffs are entitled to seek redress against the defendant for the infringement of their constitutional rights and the rights of other non-Muslim parents,” he said.
Firdaus has filed an appeal against the ruling.
On July 10, the judge ordered Firdaus to permanently take down the video that he published last year.
Based on the contents of the video, the judge found that Firdaus had Article 12(4) of the constitution in mind when making the video.
Article 12(4) provides that the religion of persons under the age of 18 shall be decided by their parents.
“His advice is to get around Article 12(4) of the constitution covertly so as to deny the parents their constitutional right to determine the religion of their children,” he said.
In the video uploaded in June last year, Firdaus is seen giving a religious teacher advice on how to respond to minors seeking to convert to Islam without notifying their parents.
Numerous police reports were lodged against Firdaus after the video made its rounds on social media, prompting authorities to initiate a probe under Section 505(c) of the Penal Code for statements likely to incite public mischief.
In his judgment, the judge expressed surprise that no enforcement action had been taken against Firdaus, noting that his conduct showed little regard for Malaysians of other faiths and posed a risk to public order and harmony.
Lawyers M Visvanathan, Sanjay Nathan and Pushan Qin Nathan appeared for the parents. - FMT
