Judge: I was ticked off for judgment in Indira Gandhi case
KUALA LUMPUR: Court of Appeal judge Justice Datuk Hamid Sultan Abu Backer revealed how he was reprimanded by a top judge for his dissenting judgment in the controversial case of M. Indira Gandhi.
In an open forum, Hamid Sultan said he thought he had perfected the constitutional oath jurisprudence in his judgment and that it was his “greatest gift” to the Malaysian public.
“To my surprise, I was shocked when I got into trouble with a top judge in the judiciary.
“Immediately, after the judgment was released to the public (on Jan 5, 2016), a top judge called up the entire coram and severely reprimanded me alleging inter alia of judicial activism,” he said in his speech at the International Malaysia Law Conference organised by the Malaysian Bar at a hotel here yesterday.
Justice Hamid Sultan was taking part in a forum titled “Judiciary as The Principal Guardians of The Rule of Law”.
The appellate court judge also said the senior judge threw tantrums at him in an uncivilised manner.
“I stood my ground. My response to that top judge was that I do not have to defend my judgment and I will not be cowed to act against my Oath of Office,” he said.
On Dec 30, 2015, a three-man panel which included Justice Hamid Sultan, decided on the government’s appeal against Indira, a kindergarten teacher who had previously obtained a decision to quash the conversion certificates of her three children.
The children had been converted to Islam by Indira’s ex-husband Muhammad Riduan Abdullah, formerly known as K. Patmanathan.
Justices Balia Yusof Wahi and Badariah Sahamid formed the majority decision that from a subject matter approach, whether a person was a Muslim or not was only to be decided by the Syariah Court.
In his dissenting decision, Justice Hamid Sultan said the Administration of Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004, the law that allowed for the conversion, could be questioned by a civil court.
The panel set aside the Ipoh High Court’s decision to quash the conversion.
After the incident, Justice Hamid Sultan said his relationship with the top judge and many others was strained.
“After that case, I was not surprised when I was not assigned or empanelled to hear cases related to the Federal Constitution and public interest matters.
“However, I managed to raise the constitutional oath jurisprudence in some of the civil and commercial cases as well,” he added.
Meanwhile, retired Federal Court judge Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram said the power of the judiciary rests in its interpretive jurisdiction.
“Our judiciary failed for many years because they applied our constitution provisions literally. There was a great desire to protect the executive at one time, and because of that they gave narrow interpretations to wide clauses,” he said.
Retired Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia Robert Shenton French and retired Chief Justice of Bangladesh Md Muzammel Hossain also took part in the forum moderated by former president of the Malaysian Bar Steven Thiru.