Court sets hearing of Indira Gandhi’s suit against IGP, govt on Dec 15

M. Indira Gandhi is seen at the High Court in Ipoh March 22, 2021. — Picture by Farhan Najib
M. Indira Gandhi is seen at the High Court in Ipoh March 22, 2021. — Picture by Farhan Najib

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our Telegram channel for the latest updates.


KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 15 —The High Court here today set December 15 and 16 to hear the suit filed by kindergarten teacher M. Indira Gandhi against the Inspector -General of Police (IGP) and the government for allegedly failing to arrest her ex-husband and return her daughter who was abducted by him 12 years ago.

Judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali set the date during the case management, which was conducted via e-Review today and was attended by Indira Gandhi’s lawyer, Pavitra Loganathan, and federal counsel Shazreen Nadia Zulkipli, representing the IGP and the government.

Lawyer Rajesh Nagarajan, who also represented Indira Gandhi, when contacted said the court also set November 15 for case management for parties to submit documents on the trial.

In a suit filed on october 28 last year, Indira Gandhi, 46, alleged that the IGP had deliberately and negligently disregarded a mandamus order issued by the Federal Court in failing to investigate or take appropriate action to return her daughter, Prasana Diksa, who is now 13 years old.

She claimed that all the defendants had a role to play in making decisions or ordering the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) to execute the committal warrant against Muhammad Riduan as ordered by the Federal Court on April 29, 2016.

The woman contended that the behaviour of all the defendants had directly caused her separation from her youngest daughter, who is now 13, to continue until today and that their behaviour had also caused Mohd Riduan to flee.

She is seeking RM100 million in general, aggravated and exemplary damages, as well as a declaration that the first defendant (IGP) had committed the tort of nonfeasance in public office, and the second, third and fourth defendants were also vicariously liable for the tort of nonfeasance committed by the first defendant. — Bernama

You May Also Like

Related Articles