Inspector-general of police Khalid Abu Bakar should be compelled to recover M Indira Gandhi's daughter and if there is any dispute, the IGP should come to the court to get clarification.

This argument was submitted by lawyer Aston Paiva, who appeared for Indira Gandhi before the Federal Court today in her long-running child conversion case.

"This follows a recovery order issued by the High Court and a committal order against my client's former husband, K Pathmanathan, for not returning the‎ daughter Prasana Diksa to her," Aston said.

"For the past seven years, there has been no sign of Pathmanathan (also known as Mohamad Ridhwan Abdullah), for he did not even come to court."

Aston submitted this before a five-member panel led by Court of Appeal President Mohd Raus Sharif today.

The other judges were Federal Court judges Abdull Hamid Embong, Azahar Mohamed and Zaharah Ibrahim and Court of Appeal judge Aziah Ali.

Also acting for Indira Gandhi was M Kulasegaran.

Aston was referring to the civil court order granted to Indira Gandhi and the Syariah Court order gained by Ridhwan.

“Ridhwan only has a custody order from the Syariah Court but here, from the civil courts, we have a committal order and a recovery order to compel the IGP to find the child,” he said.

“Furthermore, in this case, Ridhwan has failed to appear in court for the past six or seven years,” the lawyer said.

This was in response to Justice Mohd Raus who said there were two conflicting orders from the civil court and syariah court.

When asked by Justice Mohd Raus on other cases where the courts ordered the police to find someone but they could not locate the person, Aston replied that the police should have at least tried and then come back to the court to report this.

The lawyer said that in Indira Gandhi's case, the police have not done that and were only sitting on the order.

Private dispute

Senior federal counsel Suzana Atan told the court that this was not a public dispute and should not involve the police or government.

“This is not within the scope of a public dispute,” Suzana said.

Furthermore, Suzana also pointed that there were two conflicting orders by two separate courts and questioned how the IGP was supposed to comply with them.

The senior federal counsel said this when answering the court on its question as to whether an order of mandamus can be directed to compel the IGP to direct the police officers under him to execute a warrant of committal and a recovery order under the Child Act 2001, where such orders have not been reversed or set aside.

Aston's further reply on the two conflicting orders was that the IGP should then come to court and seek clarification.

Indira Gandhi's case grabbed local headlines when Ridhwan embraced Islam and converted their three children in 2009.

While challenging the unilateral conversion of her children, Indira also mounted a legal battle for the return of her youngest child and in March 2010, the High Court in Ipoh granted custody of the toddler to her.

However, at the same time, Ridhwan was granted custody by the Syariah High Court.

On Sept 12 last year, the High Court in Ipoh issued a mandamus order compelling the IGP to arrest Ridhwan and return their youngest daughter to Indira.

Conversions declared illegal

However, the Court of Appeal on Dec 17, last year overturned the High Court's decision.

There is a decision pending in the Court of Appeal over the conversion of Indira Gandhi's three children by her former husband, which was heard last May.

This follows the High Court in Ipoh declaring the conversions as illegal and null and void.

The court case also has various interests groups present including the Malaysian Consultative Council of Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and Sikhism represented by Philip Koh and various women's non-government organisations represented by lawyer Goh Siu Lin.

Following today's hearing, the Federal Court will deliver its judgment on a date that is yet to be fixed.