Summary and Facts
Karnan a/l Rajanthiran & Ors v Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2025] 9 MLJ 14 concerns on a Muslim convert and self-proclaimed preacher (defendant), uploaded a video titled “saya takut mati luar Islam” on TikTok @brofirdauswong advising how underaged non-Muslim children could be secretly converted to Islam without their parents’ knowledge.
Besides, the defendant also taught how to perform prayers secretly and advised the underage non-Muslim children who interested in converting to Islam for not register the conversion as it against the laws of Malaysia. The plaintiffs, as the parents of underage non-Muslim children aware of that video lodged a police report on 22.6.2024, 24.6.2024, and 18.7.2024 for that video.
The plaintiffs applied for a mandatory interim injunction to compel the defendant to remove the video.
Legal Issues
- Whether the video posted by the plaintiff breached Art 12(4) of the Federal Constitution.
- Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a mandatory interim injunction directing the defendant to immediately take down the video pending disposal of the action.
Court’s Findings
- The interim injunction was granted by the court.
- The advised by the defendant in the video breached Art 12(4) by advising for conversion of religion of a person under 18 can be done secretly without the knowledge of the parents.
- Art 12(4) of the Federal Constitution provided that the religion of person below 18 years old should be determined by the parent or guardian.
- The video also demonstrated the defendant’s awareness that what he suggested was legally impermissible.
- The court found that there was a serious bona fide issue to be tried as to whether the defendant’s advice in the video contravened Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution.
- The balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs as they faced irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages, whereas the defendant would only suffer temporary removal of the video.
Practical Implications
This judgment affirms the several principle of laws including:
- Social media content can be restrained via mandatory injunction if it posses risk of constitutional infringement.
- Mandatory injunctions will be allowed if the parties can prove the case is “unusually strong and clear.
- Freedom of speech does not extend to advising conduct that violates the Constitution.