Kerajaan Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li PENCELAH Suruhanjaya Komunikasi Dan Multimedia Malaysia (MCMC), Cyberjaya AMICUS CURIE 1. ) Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) 2. ) Clooney Foundation For Justice (CFJ) 3. ) The International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) 4. ) BADAN PEGUAM MALAYSIA

01f-44-11-2025b Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) 5 February 2026 • 01(f)-44-11/2025(B) • 132 min read
38 cases cited (0 SG, 38 foreign)

Catchwords

Article 4(1) Federal Constitution Article 4(2) Federal Constitution Article 10(1)(a) Federal Constitution Article 10(2)(a) Federal Constitution Freedom of speech and expression Article 10(1)(a) Federal Constitution guarantees expression subject to permissible restrictions Permissible restrictions under Article 10(2)(a) Federal Constitution Words “offensive” and “annoy” in section 233(1)(a) CMA Presumption of constitutionality Principle of reading down Vagueness avoidance doctrine Purpose of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Prevent improper use of network facilities Digital regulation in the age of social media Safeguard against harm in online communications. Guidelines on prosecution recommended Effect of striking out of “offensive” and “annoy” Removal of “offensive” and “annoy” impacts related offences under section 233(1)(a) Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Freedom of speech has inherent restrictions Art 10(1)(a) Federal Constitution does not encompass communication with intent to harm or cause injury to another individual or group of persons Constitutional challenge timing Whether challenge was properly brought in the absence of a subsisting factual matrix.

Practice Areas

Article 4(1) Federal Constitution Article 4(2) Federal Constitution Article 10(1)(a) Federal Constitution Article 10(2)(a) Federal Constitution Freedom of speech and expression Article 10(1)(a) Federal Constitution guarantees expression subject to permissible restrictions Permissible restrictions under Article 10(2)(a) Federal Constitution Words “offensive” and “annoy” in section 233(1)(a) CMA Presumption of constitutionality Principle of reading down Vagueness avoidance doctrine Purpose of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Prevent improper use of network facilities Digital regulation in the age of social media Safeguard against harm in online communications. Guidelines on prosecution recommended Effect of striking out of “offensive” and “annoy” Removal of “offensive” and “annoy” impacts related offences under section 233(1)(a) Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Freedom of speech has inherent restrictions Art 10(1)(a) Federal Constitution does not encompass communication with intent to harm or cause injury to another individual or group of persons Constitutional challenge timing Whether challenge was properly brought in the absence of a subsisting factual matrix.

Judges (5)

Che Mohd Ruzima bin Ghazali Coram Collin Lawrence Sequerah Coram Mohd Nazlan bin Mohd Ghazali Coram Nallini Pathmanathan Delivered Utama Wan Ahmad Farid bin Wan Salleh Coram

Counsel (20)

AmerBON, Advocates Firm Benjamin Dawson Firm Jabatan Peguam Negara Firm Kanesalingam & Co Firm Lim Wei Jiet Firm Abby Si Xin Yi Counsel Respondent Benjamin John Dawson Counsel Intervener Dato' Malik Imtiaz Sarwar Counsel Respondent K. Shanmuga Counsel Intervener Kee Hui Yee Counsel Intervener Kresha Paskaren Counsel Intervener Liew Horng Bin Counsel Appellant Lim Wei Jiet Counsel Intervener Lim Yvonne Counsel Respondent Nevyn Vinosh Venudran Counsel Intervener New Sin Yew Counsel Respondent Nor Syazana binti Jamaluddin Counsel Intervener Nur Izni Syazwani binti Ahmad Counsel Respondent Shamsul Bolhassan Counsel Appellant Surendra Ananth Counsel Respondent

Parties (7)

BADAN PEGUAM MALAYSIA Amicus Curiae Clooney Foundation For Justice Amicus Curiae Kerajaan Malaysia Appellant Suruhanjaya Komunikasi Dan Multimedia Malaysia, Cyberjaya Intervener The International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute Amicus Curiae Heidy Quah Gaik Li Respondent Suara Rakyat Malaysia Amicus Curiae

Case Significance

Kerajaan Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li PENCELAH Suruhanjaya Komunikasi Dan Mu... is a Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) decision dated February 5, 2026 (citation: 01f-44-11-2025b). <p>The Government appealed against the Court of Appeal's decision striking out the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 as unconstitutional. The Federal Court reversed the striking out, holding that the impugned words can be read down to comply with Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution through the requirement of mens rea, but affirmed there was no basis to prosecute the respondent as her Facebook post was protected speech. The The panel comprised Che Mohd Ruzima bin Ghazali, Collin Lawrence Sequerah, Mohd Nazlan bin Mohd Ghazali, Nallini Pathmanathan and Utama Wan Ahmad Farid bin Wan Salleh, with Nallini Pathmanathan delivering the judgment.

Key issues: Article 4(1) Federal Constitution.

Summary

The Government appealed against the Court of Appeal's decision striking out the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 as unconstitutional. The Federal Court reversed the striking out, holding that the impugned words can be read down to comply with Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution through the requirement of mens rea, but affirmed there was no basis to prosecute the respondent as her Facebook post was protected speech. The appeal was allowed in part.

What was the outcome of Kerajaan Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li PENCELAH Suruhanjaya Komunikasi Dan Mu...?

<p>The Government appealed against the Court of Appeal's decision striking out the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' from section 233(1)(a) of the Communi...

Statutes Cited

Communications and Multimedia Act 1998
s 233(1)(a)
Courts of Judicature Act 1964
s 84
Federal Constitution
Information Technology Act 2000
s 66A
Information Technology Act 2000
s 66A
Interpretation Act
s 17A
UK Communications Act 2003
s 127(1)
UK Communications Act 2003
s 127(1)
UK Malicious Communications Act 1988
s 1(1)(b)

Cases Cited (38)

UK (13)
[1967] 2 All ER 436 [1998] UKPC 30 [1999] 3 All ER 400 [2006] UKHL 40 [2008] 1 WLR 276 [2021] 1 WLR 1828 [2022] UKSC 32 [2023] 2 WLR 651 [2023] AC 505 [2024] EWCA Crim 229 [2024] EWCA Crim 25 [2025] 1 All ER 82 [2025] 2 All ER 168
MY (22)
[1971] 2 MLJ 108 [1976] 2 MLJ 112 [1976] 2 MLJ 116 [1987] 2 MLJ 522 [1994] 1 MLJ 566 [1996] 1 MLJ 261 [2009] 5 MLJ 301 [2010] 2 MLJ 333 [2010] 3 MLJ 307 [2011] 6 MLJ 297 [2015] 2 CLJ 328 [2015] 3 MLJ 162 [2015] 6 MLJ 751 [2020] 4 MLJ 133 [2020] 4 MLJ 721 [2021] 2 MLJ 323 [2022] 2 MLJ 356 [2022] 3 MLJ 356 [2022] 3 MLJ 450 [2022] 6 MLJ 102 [2023] 6 MLJ 483 [2024] 1 MLJ 225
IN (3)
(2023) 4 SCC 1 AIR 1966 SC 740 AIR 1970 SC 1228