I have just come back from the Shah Alam High Court which dismissed the habeas corpus application for the release of Revathi A/P Masoosai/Siti Fatimah binti Abdul Karim filed by her husband Suresh A/L Veerappan on the ground that she had been released from 180-day detention at the Ulu Yam Islamic Rehabilitation Centre by the Malacca Syariah High Court yesterday.
Revathi was released to the custody of her parents by the Malacca Syariah High Court yesterday evening with the order that she could not convert out of Islam. Syariah High Court judge Radzi said Islam is not only between man and Allah but is also the responsibility between the community and country, and to come out of it is “treason”.
Is it right and proper for the Malacca Syariah High Court judge to describe as treason a conversion out of Islam?
Isn’t it ridiculous to release Revathi to the custody of her parents when she is an adult woman of 29 years with a 18-month daughter from her marriage to Suresh according to Hindu rites, with the couple stoutly defending their family despite Revathi’s 180-day detention?
What does the Syariah Court’s order of release of Revathi to the custody of her parents mean? Could she be punished and even re-detained and sent again to Ulu Yam Rehabilitation Centre on ground of breach of term of her release order?
Revathi had been detained for six months since 9th January 2007 and sent to the Ulu Yam rehabilitation centre, and her family of three forcibly separated in three different locations when the Malacca Islamic Religious Department also took their daughter Diviya Dharshini from the custody of the father and placed her in care of the grandparents on March 26, 2007.
Diviya Dharshini is now more than 18 months old and she has no birth certificate — an example of bureaucracy gone crazy.
The lawyer for the aggrieved family, Karpal Singh, will file an appeal to the Federal Court against the Shah Alam High Court dismissal of the habeas corpus application, contending that although Revathi had been released rendering her habeas corpus application an academic exercise, there are important public issues concerning constitutional rights and fundamental liberties which the court should have addressed as they concern not just parties to the case but the larger public.