[UPDATED] Court reserves ruling in Indira Gandhi's RM100mil missing daughter suit

New Straits Times

a day ago

PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has reserved judgment on kindergarten teacher M. Indira Gandhi's appeal to reinstate her RM100 million lawsuit against the police and government over their alleged failure to locate her daughter, Prasana Diksa.
A three-member Court of Appeal panel, chaired by Datuk Mohamed Zaini Mazlan made the decision after hearing lengthy submissions from both parties today.
Zaini said the court needed time to deliberate on the arguments and examine the records before delivering its decision.
Other members of the bench were Datuk Faizah Jamaludin and Datuk Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid.
Indira filed the lawsuit on Oct 28, 2020, naming former inspector-general of police (IGP) Tan Sri Abdul Hamid Bador, the police, Home Ministry, and the government as defendants.
Indira's daughter, Prasana Diksa, was taken by her ex-husband, K. Pathmanathan, 15 years ago. Pathmanathan is reported to have taken Prasana away after unilaterally converting all three of their children to Islam in 2009. Prasana was 11 months old at the time.
Earlier, Indira's lawyer Rajesh Nagarajan submitted that the police refused to arrest Pathmanathan despite knowing his whereabouts.
He said Pathmanathan also known as Muhammad Riduan Abdullah had several outstanding traffic summonses and was found to have paid them in 2020.
He said Abdul Hamid had publicly said that he knew where Muhammad Riduan was and had been trying to locate him since he went missing in 2009 with the couple's youngest child, who is now 17.
"The then IGP admitted knowing the whereabouts of the appellant's former husband but failed to comply with a court order to trace, arrest, and return her daughter.
"Even though he knew the location, he refused to apprehend and bring the man to justice. He failed to do what was necessary.
"How can the police allow him to move freely in this country?" he submitted.
Rajesh said Indira's ex-husband had yet to comply with a High Court mandamus order to return Prasana to her mother, who has legal custody of the child.
He said it was "illogical" for the police to assign the Special Task Force on Organised Crime (STAFOC) (now restructured) to locate her former husband.
"STAFOC is for organised crime. It makes no sense because Muhammad Riduan is not part of any organised criminal group, but merely a disgruntled father.
"This is the first time I have heard of STAFOC being used to track down a father who ran away with his daughter," he said.
Meanwhile, senior federal counsel Nur Ezdiani Roleb argued that the appellant had failed to show that all respondents had neglected to take reasonable action in tracing and arresting Pathmanathan.
She said police had carried out various efforts to find him, including tapping into investigative resources from STAFOC at the time.
On the traffic summonses claim, Ezdiani said the appellant had never filed an application to verify the matter or to seek disclosure of related records.
The court also fixed Aug 25 for the next case management.
On June 28 last year, the High Court dismissed Indira's suit, saying that the plaintiff must prove malice or bad faith to establish the tort of nonfeasance.
In his ruling, Judge Datuk Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah Raja Mohzan said that the police had used all available resources to locate the wanted man.
The court said the evidence suggests that all the efforts made by the IGP and the police were not indicative of any neglect of their duties.