KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 6 — If a baby is left with an adult by an unknown birth mother who then disappears permanently from the child’s life, will the child receive the same constitutional protection against statelessness as a baby found by the roadside or at a baby hatch?
The Court of Appeal has ruled that the answer is “yes”, holding that such a child has been “abandoned” as a newborn.
The decision is significant because it means the child can rely on the Federal Constitution’s safeguards against statelessness and satisfy the legal requirements to automatically acquire Malaysian citizenship.
The ruling arose from the case of a girl, identified only as LS to protect her identity, who was born in Seremban, Negeri Sembilan, and abandoned by her birth mother at a care home within days of her birth.
LS, who turns 14 later this year, does not know the identity of her biological mother.
Her adoptive parents, who legally adopted her through the courts, have cared for her since she was two weeks old after taking her from the care home. They also do not know who her birth mother is.
The National Registration Department (NRD) issued LS a birth certificate identifying her as “Bukan Warganegara” (“Non-citizen”), prompting her adoptive parents to challenge the decision in court on the grounds that she is stateless but should be recognised as a Malaysian citizen.
A stateless person is someone who is not recognised as a citizen by any country.
On Nov 28, 2025, the High Court in Kuala Lumpur dismissed LS’s citizenship application, finding she had not been “abandoned” because there was evidence suggesting her biological mother had intentionally entrusted her to the woman operating the care home.
However, the Court of Appeal has now overturned that decision and ordered that LS be issued a MyKad.
Why the Seremban-born girl won her appeal
On Aug 3, a three-member Court of Appeal panel unanimously ruled that LS had in fact been abandoned as a newborn and is therefore a Malaysian citizen.
LS’s lawyer, Agalya J. Munusamy, said Court of Appeal judge Datuk Faizah Jamaludin delivered the court’s broad grounds of judgment.
The appeal centred on three constitutional provisions:
- Section 19B of Part III of the Second Schedule, which protects abandoned newborn children from statelessness;
- Article 14(1)(b); and
- Section 1(a) of Part II of the Second Schedule, which provides that a person born in Malaysia to at least one Malaysian citizen or permanent resident is a Malaysian citizen.
Section 19B creates a presumption that an abandoned newborn was born to a mother who is a permanent resident, allowing the child to satisfy the constitutional requirements for citizenship.
Citing the Court of Appeal’s judgment, Agalya said the key question was whether Section 19B also protects a child intentionally surrendered by the birth mother to another adult before she permanently disappears.
“The core issue to be determined is whether a child who was intentionally or permanently surrendered by her birth mother to an intermediary for the purpose of finding another family to raise her is excluded from the constitutional protection under Section 19B because she was placed in the hands of a responsible adult, rather than being left at the roadside, hospital, baby hatch or other locations,” she told Malay Mail, quoting the judgment.
According to Agalya, the Court of Appeal held that, following the Federal Court’s decision in CCH’s citizenship case, the focus of Section 19B is whether abandonment occurred, not the method by which the birth mother relinquished the child.
“The constitutional protection is not lost merely because the mother selected a safe person with whom she may leave the child.
“An intentional surrender coupled with the birth mother’s permanent disappearance may amount to abandonment,” she said, citing the judgment.
Based on the evidence, the court concluded that LS had been abandoned as a newborn in Seremban and was therefore entitled to rely on Section 19B’s constitutional protection.
The court also held that the burden of rebutting the Section 19B presumption lies with the party challenging it.
In other words, the NRD and the Malaysian government had to prove that LS’s birth mother was not a permanent resident, rather than requiring the child or her adoptive parents to prove a “negative fact” by identifying a mother they did not know.
As the government failed to rebut the constitutional presumption, the Court of Appeal declared LS to be a Malaysian citizen.
The other judges on the panel were Datuk Noorin Badaruddin and Datuk Aliza Sulaiman.
Lawyer Kirthika Padmanapan also represented LS and her adoptive parents, while senior federal counsel Husniyyah Hanapi appeared for the respondents.
Orders made by the Court of Appeal
LS’s adoptive parents, who are not Malaysians, filed the originating summons on her behalf in March 2023 against the NRD director-general, the home minister and the Malaysian government.
Agalya said the Court of Appeal granted seven of the reliefs sought, including declarations that LS is a Malaysian citizen by operation of law under Article 14(1)(b), Section 1(a) and Section 19B of the Federal Constitution, and that she is presumed to have been born to a permanent resident mother under Section 19B.
The court also declared that the NRD had unlawfully violated LS’s constitutional rights by issuing her a birth certificate identifying her as a non-citizen instead of a Malaysian citizen.
Among its orders, the Court of Appeal directed the NRD to reissue LS’s birth certificate showing her as a Malaysian citizen within 14 days and to issue her a MyKad within the same period. No order was made as to legal costs.
On June 30, the Court of Appeal, in a separate 2-1 decision, similarly ruled that a girl identified as “M”, who was born at a clinic in Klang and abandoned by her unknown birth mother a few days later, was also an abandoned child entitled to Malaysian citizenship.
In that case, the birth mother had deactivated her phone number and disappeared without leaving any information that would allow her identity to be established. The Malaysian government has since appealed that decision to the Federal Court.
Recommended reading
- What is a “new born child”? Malaysia’s Court of Appeal clarifies citizenship laws for abandoned children
- Court of Appeal grants Malaysian citizenship to abandoned Klang teen, rejects Pahang woman’s appeal
- Federal Court declares stateless KL-born child adopted by Penang couple a Malaysian citizen, orders issuance of new birth certificate
