[UPDATED] Indira Gandhi loses RM100 mil case against ex-IGP, police, govt

KUALA LUMPUR – The high court has dismissed the RM100 million civil suit filed by M. Indira Gandhi, a 49-year-old single mother, against former inspector-general (IGP) of police Tan Sri Abdul Hamid Bador, the Home Ministry, police, and the government.

Judge Datuk Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah Raja Mohzan, in dismissing the suit, found that Hamid and the police had exercised their duties in the manner they considered to be the most appropriate in locating Indira’s former husband Muhammad Riduan Abdullah (previously K. Pathmanathan) and their youngest child, Prasana Diksa. 

He tied his findings to the evidence presented and found that there was no indication that the former IGP and police had neglected their duties.

“Having all the evidence before me and coupled with the fact that in order for the plaintiff (Indira) to succeed in the tort of nonfeasance, she still must demonstrate the existence of malice or bad faith.

“It is impossible for me to conclude that the (former) IGP and the police did not attempt to locate the whereabouts of Pathmanathan.

“Furthermore, this is certainly not a scenario in which Pathmanathan was roaming around Kuala Lumpur or any other area in the presence of police, without police taking any action, despite noticing his appearance.

“If this were the case, I would have viewed the factor in favour of the plaintiff. 

“However, the facts before me indicate that Pathmanathan’s whereabouts were unknown, (with) evidence further suggests that he was in Thailand at some point in time.” 

He also said he is in no position to second-guess the manner of police conducting their investigation in this case.

What matters, he added, is that there is evidence that an investigation has been conducted and is still in progress.

“As a result, I accept Hamid’s and Assistant Superintendent Yap Siew Cheng’s testimony in relation to the entire investigation scenario.

“I further find that neither the IGP nor the police have any ill intentions in this matter. 

“In light of my findings, I am constrained to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim. Nevertheless, given the nature and circumstances of the dispute, I made no order regarding costs.”

Ahmad Mohzanuddin also found that there was no mandamus order issued to Hamid that compels him to enforce or execute a recovery order under Section 53 of the Child Act 2001 to search, retrieve and return Indira’s youngest daughter back in her arms.

The recovery order and committal order were issued by Ipoh High Court on May 30, 2014. The committal order was issued to compel the authorities to arrest Riduan for not complying with the court’s order that had granted her custody of their three children.

However, at the same time, the Perak Shariah Court had granted Riduan custody of all their children.

“The IGP at that time, had failed to execute those orders because he was faced with two conflicting orders, namely the order of Perak Shariah Court and the Ipoh High Court order.

“Following a detailed analysis of the matter, the Federal Court (when hearing the case appeal) concluded that since the Shariah High Court had given Riduan custody of the child, the civil high court could not possibly issue the recovery order under Section 53.

“In the Federal Court’s view, the civil high court could not direct the IGP or his officers to execute the recovery order since both the Syariah High Court and civil high court orders bind the IGP and his officers either way and executing one order would result in contempt for the other.

“Having reviewed the reasoning of the Federal Court (on April 29, 2016) it seems clear as day that the Federal Court has upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal which set aside the mandamus order in respect of the recovery order.

“Thus, I find that there was no mandamus order issued to the IGP to enforce or execute the recovery order,” he added.

On October 28, 2020, Indira filed a RM100 million suit against the defendants, alleging that Hamid, during his tenure as IGP, and the other defendants had committed the tort of nonfeasance (intentionally neglecting to carry out their duty) in public office.

In her statement of claim, Indira detailed how the defendants had been negligent and had engaged in misconduct by failing to take the necessary steps to apprehend Riduan.

She also described her anxiety stemming from constant worry about her daughter’s safety and wellbeing, and she seeks general, exemplary, and aggravated damages from all defendants.

She claimed that the defendants deliberately and negligently disregarded the Federal Court’s mandamus order issued in 2016, which directed them to apprehend her former husband and retrieve her daughter for return to her custody.

A mandamus order is a court order that compels government officials to properly fulfil their duties or correct an abuse of discretion.

Riduan converted to Muslim and allegedly abducted Prasana when she was just 11 months old in 2009. – June 28, 2024