PUTRAJAYA (May 31, 2007): The Federal Court yesterday turned down Lina Joy's appeal to have the word "Islam" removed from her identity card.

The three-member panel, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that Lina, 43, would have to obtain an apostasy certificate from the syariah court before she can proceed to delete the word from her identity card.

Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Datuk Alauddin Mohd Sheriff dismissed the appeal while Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Datuk Richard Malanjum dissented.

Lina, who was born into a Muslim family as Azlina Jailani, had converted to Christianity and changed her name in her identity card. She took the National Registration Department (NRD) to court after it refused her third application to remove the word "Islam" from the card.

Before the proceedings began, the main entrance to the courtroom was blocked as police and security personnel limited the number of people who could enter to hear the judgment to about 60. The number of journalists covering the case was limited to about 15 people as other lawyers, chambering students, NGOs and the public also vied for a place in the courtroom.

At 10.45am, Ahmad Fairuz began to read out his 42-page judgment in Bahasa Malaysia.

Ahmad Fairuz said the NRD's action was reasonable when it asked Lina for verification from the syariah court on her religious status, and that the NRD was free from any wrongdoing when it made the request.

He said if the court were to rule that the NRD's refusal was unreasonable, it would mean that the NRD would have to accept that a person was no longer a Muslim just by claiming that he/she had renounced Islam.

"The NRD's request is reasonable, as the word murtad (apostate) is related to the Islamic law and a requirement that an apostasy certificate be tendered to them is not beyond logic and moral standards."

On the jurisdiction issue, Ahmad Fairuz said the law -- as demonstrated in the Soon Singh case -- clearly stated that the syariah court had jurisdiction over cases involving Islam and also, by necessary implication, over matters relating to Muslims renouncing Islam.

He said it was not finalised yet that the appellant no longer came under the syariah court's jurisdiction just based on her argument that she no longer professed Islam.

He said a person who wanted to renounce his/her religion must do so according to existing laws or practices of the particular religion. Only after the person has complied with the requirements and the authorities are satisfied that the person has apostatised, can she embrace Christianity, he added.

"In other words, a person cannot, at one's whims and fancies renounce or embrace a religion," he said.

"Based on the above, my answer to the questions raised are as follows: NRD has the right, NRD was correct and the Soon Singh case had been decided correctly."

Malanjum, who dissented, read out his judgment next. He said when considering an issue of constitutional importance, it was vital to bear in mind that all other interests and feelings, personal or otherwise, should give way and assume only a secondary role if at all.

He said having considered the two regulations vis-a-vis the requirement imposed by the NRD, having the constitution in the forefront of his mind and having considered the submissions of both parties, some pertinent conclusions can be derived on the first two questions.

He said Article 8 of the Constitution prohibited any form of discrimination (on the grounds of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender) unless it was explicitly permitted by the Constitution.

He said Regulation 4(c) singled out Muslims for additional procedural burdens and impediments, which were not connected to personal law and did not apply to non-Muslims.

"Hence, in my view this is tantamount to unequal treatment under the law. In other words it is discriminatory and unconstitutional and should therefore be struck down.

"For this reason alone, the relief sought for by the appellant should be granted, namely for a declaration that she is entitled to have an identity card in which the word ÔIslam' does not appear," said Malanjum.

On the NRD's request for the apostasy certificate, Malanjum said he was inclined to agree with Lina's counsel that the NRD had acted beyond its powers under the two regulations and hence acted "illegally" by requiring her to produce a document that was not provided for nor authorised by the regulations.

He added that apostasy was a criminal offence in some states and to expect Lina to apply for an apostasy certificate -- when doing so would likely expose her to a range of offences under the Islamic law -- was "unreasonable for it means the appellant is made to self-incriminate".

On the question of jurisdiction, the judge said he was not inclined to follow the reasoning in the Soon Singh case, as no court or authority should be easily allowed to have implied powers to curtail any rights granted by the Constitution.

Alauddin, who took his turn last, said he concurred with Ahmad Fairuz's decision.