Selangor Journal
A Court of Appeal chamber in the Palace of Justice, Putrajaya. — Picture by BERNAMA

Appeals Court dismisses government’s appeal to strike out Indira Gandhi’s suit

PUTRAJAYA, Sept 7 — The Court of Appeal today dismissed an appeal by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and three others to strike out a nonfeasance lawsuit filed against them by a kindergarten teacher over their alleged failure to arrest her ex-husband and return her daughter who was abducted by him.

A three-member panel comprising Justices Datuk Hanipah Farikullah, Datuk M. Gunalan and Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim held that the suit filed by M.Indira Gandhi should be dealt by way of a trial.

Besides the IGP, the others named as defendants in the suit are the police, the Home Ministry and the government.

“We are of the considered view that based on the facts and circumstances of this case, there are complex issues of law including issues on interpretation of Section 7 (2) of the Government Proceedings Act, Section 20 of the Police Act and also on the common law position on the tort of nonfeasance by a public officer,” said Justice Hanipah.

She said Indira Gandhi’s claim was not an obviously unsustainable case to warrant it to be struck out.

There was no error by the High Court in its decision to dismiss the striking-out application brought by the IGP and three others, she said, adding that there was no merit in the government’s appeal.

She also ordered the defendants to pay RM10,000 cost to Indira Gandhi and set Sept 14 for the case management at the High Court.

On July 16, last year, then High Court judge Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali (now Court of Appeal judge) dismissed the government’s application to strike out Indira Gandhi’s suit that claimed the IGP had deliberately and negligently disregarded a mandamus order issued by the Federal Court in failing to investigate or take appropriate action to return her youngest child Prasana Diksa.

She alleged that the IGP, the Home Ministry and the government had a role to play in making decisions or ordering the police to execute the committal warrant against Muhammad Riduan Abdullah, formerly known as K. Pathmanathan, as ordered by the Federal Court on April 29, 2016.

She is seeking general, aggravated and exemplary damages and a declaration that the IGP had committed the tort of nonfeasance in public office, and that the Home Ministry and the government were vicariously liable for the tort of nonfeasance committed by the IGP.

Prasana Diksa was taken away by Muhammad Riduan when she was 11 months old, shortly after he converted to Islam.

In 2009, Muhammad Riduan unilaterally converted their three children to Islam without Indira Gandhi’s consent before going to the Syariah Court to obtain custody of the children, but in 2018 the Federal Court ruled the unilateral conversion of the three children as null and void.

The Ipoh High Court in 2010 granted full custody of the children to Indira Gandhi.

In 2016, the Federal Court affirmed the mandamus order issued by the High Court directing the police and the appellants to apprehend Muhammad Riduan and retrieve Prasana Diksa to be returned to Indira Gandhi.

Senior federal counsel Andi Razalijaya A. Dadi appeared for the government at the proceeding today,  which was conducted online, while a team of lawyers led by Rajesh Nagarajan represented Indira Gandhi.

— Bernama

 

Top Picks

AirAsia’s core reservation, check-in system affected by global IT issue

Police training institute instructors must have bachelor’s degree at least — IGP

Singapore’s Lee Hsien Loong arrives in Malaysia for King’s installation