The Court of Appeal has reserved its decision on M Indira Gandhi’s appeal in her suit against former inspector-general of police Abdul Hamid Bador and the government for allegedly failing to arrest her former husband and return her daughter, who was abducted by him in 2008.
A three-member panel, chaired by Justice Zaini Mazlan, said the court needed time to deliberate on submissions from Indira’s lawyers and the Attorney-General’s Chambers, which represents the police and the government.
The court set Aug 25 for case management.
Indira’s lawyer, Rajesh Nagarajan, had earlier argued that the police failed to enforce the committal warrant according to the law.
He said they did not file any affidavits updating the court on their efforts to find K Pathmanathan, who converted to Islam and took the name Riduan Abdullah.
“It was only in 2020, after we (current lawyers) took over, that we wrote to the court to ask them for updates,” he said.
Justice Radzi Abdul Hamid, who also sat on the panel with Justice Faizah Jamaludin, questioned if Indira had standing to bring the claim, as contempt is an administrative matter between the court and Riduan.
He said the court sympathises with Indira, but the proceeding may not bring her daughter, Prasana Diksa, back.
“The contempt was due to his (Riduan’s) action (in not handing over Prasana),” Radzi said.
Rajesh maintained that Indira has indirect rights relating to Prasana’s whereabouts, justifying her claim.
Senior federal counsel Nur Ezdiani Roleb said Riduan is on the police’s wanted list and will be arrested if found.
Ezdiani said the High Court only ordered the police to file progress affidavits after the current lawyers took over in 2020.
She contended that the police owe no duty of care to Indira beyond executing the committal order.
Last year, the High Court dismissed Indira’s lawsuit, ruling that the police had properly performed their duty, and that it found no bad faith. The court also noted ongoing investigations to locate Riduan.
In her suit filed in 2020, Indira, 49, alleged that Hamid deliberately and negligently disregarded a mandamus order issued by the Federal Court in failing to investigate or take appropriate action to return Prasana, now 16, to her.
She claimed that Hamid and the government had a role to play in making decisions or ordering the police to execute the committal warrant against Riduan as ordered by the Federal Court on April 29, 2016.
The mother of three contended that the defendants’ behaviour directly caused her continued separation from her youngest daughter until today, and that their behaviour also caused Riduan to flee.
Indira sought RM100 million in general, aggravated and exemplary damages, as well as a declaration that Hamid had committed tort of nonfeasance in public office.
She said the government was also vicariously liable for the tort of nonfeasance committed by the police.
