THE Court of Appeal has rejected M. Indira Gandhi’s RM100 million claim against the police, Home Ministry and Government, but made clear that the dismissal should not be interpreted as a finding that the authorities had fulfilled their responsibilities in enforcing court orders to recover her missing daughter.
A three-member panel comprising Datuk Mohamed Zaini Mazlan, Datuk Faizah Jamaludin and Datuk Mohd Radzi Abdul Hamid unanimously dismissed Indira’s appeal against the High Court decision, ruling that she had failed to establish the necessary causal link between the police’s shortcomings and the losses for which she sought compensation.
The ruling nevertheless acknowledged material deficiencies in the execution of police duties, including the absence of evidence of current directions or orders from the Inspector-General of Police within the stipulated seven-day period.
Justice Faizah Jamaludin said the central issue was not whether Indira had suffered profound and continuing harm, but whether the law allowed the specific losses claimed to be attributed to an actionable failure by the defendants.
"Practically, the appellant needed to show that, were it not for the identified failures, K. Pathmanathan (whose Muslim name is Muhammad Ridhuan Abdullah) would likely have been arrested, Prasana Diksa recovered, or part of the loss avoided," she said.
The judge said damages under private law were intended to compensate for losses caused by an actionable wrong, rather than operate as a separate remedy for inadequate administrative performance.
She noted that Prasana Diksa had been taken away and the separation between mother and daughter had begun years before the court orders were issued in 2014 and 2016.
As a result, the police, Home Ministry and Government could not be held responsible under the claim for causing the child’s initial removal or the beginning of the separation, she said.
"We do not doubt the ongoing pain, anxiety, and sense of injustice experienced by the appellant. The requirement to prove causation does not diminish that suffering, but it defines the legal losses for which the court can hold defendants liable as a consequence of an actionable wrong," she said.
Justice Faizah also stressed that the appeal was not dismissed because the court had found the police response satisfactory. Nor was it dismissed on the basis that Indira lacked a direct and personal interest in the execution of the warrants, or that delays in carrying out statutory duties were legally insignificant.
Instead, the court’s conclusion was confined to the private-law claim brought by Indira and the evidence before it. Crucially, the judge said there were material shortcomings in the police’s execution of their duties.
"Nothing in these grounds should be understood as granting general immunity to the police or suggesting that failure to comply with and execute lawful court orders and warrants carries no legal implications," she said.
The distinction is significant because the court’s rejection of damages does not remove the police’s continuing statutory obligation to execute the committal warrant concerning Pathmanathan.
The case has become one of Malaysia’s most closely watched disputes involving parental rights, unilateral religious conversion, child custody and the enforcement of civil court orders.
Indira filed the suit on Oct 28, 2020, naming then Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Abdul Hamid Bador, the police force, Home Ministry and Government as defendants.
She sought a declaration that the authorities had failed to take the necessary steps to apprehend her former husband and recover Prasana Diksa, amounting to the tort of negligence in the discharge of public duties.
The dispute dates back to 2009, when Pathmanathan unilaterally converted their three children to Islam without Indira’s consent before seeking custody through the Syariah Court.
The Federal Court subsequently ruled that the unilateral conversions were null and void.
Prasana Diksa was taken by Pathmanathan when she was 11 months old, shortly after the conversion.
In 2010, the Ipoh High Court granted Indira full custody of the three children, with her two elder children later returned to her. In 2016, the Federal Court upheld a mandamus order directing the police to arrest Pathmanathan and recover Prasana Diksa for return to her mother.
Yet Prasana Diksa has remained separated from Indira, leaving the enforcement of the court orders as a continuing issue at the heart of the case.
Speaking outside court after the decision, Indira made clear that her demand was not about controlling her daughter’s choices but about finally having the opportunity to see her. "Whatever she wants or whoever she wishes to be with is not the issue. I just want to see her."
The ruling therefore closes Indira’s RM100 million civil claim at the Court of Appeal, but it does not erase the wider questions raised by the case: how effectively lawful court orders are enforced, who should be accountable when enforcement falls short, and whether families can have confidence that judicial decisions will ultimately be carried out. - August 24, 2026
.jpg)
