1. ) LOGAN A/L SEGARAN 2. ) PARTHIPAN A/L RATHAKRISHNAN 3. ) RAMAKRISHNAN A/L MASEE 4. ) MANORAJ A/L SEGARAN 5. ) HEMANATHAN A/L SELVARAJAH 6. ) RAVISHANKAR A/L KRISHNASAMY 7. ) DEENESKUMAR A/L GANESAN 8. ) SEVA SHANGAR A/L GNAPERAKASAM 9. ) ARIVINTHAN A/L SEKKAR 10. ) SARAVANAN A/L RAVINDRAN 11. ) SHEARVIN RAJOO A/L JOHN 12. ) XAVIER A/L MANOHAR 13. ) CARIS LUWDON A/L LOURDASAMY 14. ) AHILAN A/L ERANIAN 15. ) S.ARUMUGAM A/L SUPPIAH 16. ) ROBINSON A/L LOBAT 17. ) MAHENDRAN A/L VIJAYAN 18. ) T...
Catchwords
The application seeks to invalidate sections 4(5), 13, 14, 15, 16, 18A, 20 and/or 30 contravening Articles 8, 121(1) and/or 149 Although sections 4(5), 13, 14 to 16, 18A and 20 modify traditional procedural or evidentiary rules, they do not displace the core adjudicatory function of the Judiciary. Under these provisions, the Court retains judicial oversight in that they retain the inherent power to assess the credibility, weight, and relevance of evidence. The Judiciary remains the final arbiter of fact. As these measures allow the detenu a chance to challenge the prosecution’s case, they remain consistent with the right to a fair trial under Article 5 and are shielded by the special legislative powers granted under Article 149. Sections 4(5), 13, 14 to 16, 18A and 20 also satisfy the satisfy the principle of proportionality and have a rational nexus with the objective of SOSMA. This Court holds that mandatory remand requirement in section 30 violates the sanctity of judicial powers vested in the Judiciary and ignores the role of Judges as arbiters. While the Legislature maintains the authority to enact special measures for security offences under Article 149, those laws cannot completely extinguish the core adjudicatory functions of the Judiciary. Therefore, Section 30 is struck down as an impermissible abrogation of judicial power under Article 121(1).
Practice Areas
The application seeks to invalidate sections 4(5), 13, 14, 15, 16, 18A, 20 and/or 30 contravening Articles 8, 121(1) and/or 149 Although sections 4(5), 13, 14 to 16, 18A and 20 modify traditional procedural or evidentiary rules, they do not displace the core adjudicatory function of the Judiciary. Under these provisions, the Court retains judicial oversight in that they retain the inherent power to assess the credibility, weight, and relevance of evidence. The Judiciary remains the final arbiter of fact. As these measures allow the detenu a chance to challenge the prosecution’s case, they remain consistent with the right to a fair trial under Article 5 and are shielded by the special legislative powers granted under Article 149. Sections 4(5), 13, 14 to 16, 18A and 20 also satisfy the satisfy the principle of proportionality and have a rational nexus with the objective of SOSMA. This Court holds that mandatory remand requirement in section 30 violates the sanctity of judicial powers vested in the Judiciary and ignores the role of Judges as arbiters. While the Legislature maintains the authority to enact special measures for security offences under Article 149, those laws cannot completely extinguish the core adjudicatory functions of the Judiciary. Therefore, Section 30 is struck down as an impermissible abrogation of judicial power under Article 121(1).
Judges (1)
Parties (20)
BADAN PEGUAM MALAYSIA Non Party Kerajaan Malaysia Respondent Ahilan a/l Eranian Applicant Arivinthan a/l Sekkar Applicant Caris Luwdon a/l Lourdasamy Applicant Deeneskumar a/l Ganesan Applicant Hemanathan a/l Selvarajah Applicant Logan a/l Segaran Applicant Mahendran a/l Vijayan Applicant Manoraj a/l Segaran Applicant Parthipan a/l Rathakrishnan Applicant Ramakrishnan a/l Masee Applicant Ravishankar a/l Krishnasamy Applicant Robinson a/l Lobat Applicant S.arumugam a/l Suppiah Applicant Saravanan a/l Ravindran Applicant Seva Shangar a/l Gnaperakasam Applicant Shearvin Rajoo a/l John Applicant Thanes a/l Palakrishna Applicant Xavier a/l Manohar Applicant
Case Significance
1. ) LOGAN A/L SEGARAN 2. ) PARTHIPAN A/L RATHAKRISHNAN 3. ) RAMAKRISHNAN A/L... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated December 21, 2025 (citation: ba-24-26-11-2024). The case was decided by Narkunavathy Sundareson.
Key issues: This Court holds that mandatory remand requirement in section 30 violates the sanctity of judicial powers vested in the Judiciary and ignores the role of Judges as arbiters..
What was the outcome of 1. ) LOGAN A/L SEGARAN 2. ) PARTHIPAN A/L RATHAKRISHNAN 3. ) RAMAKRISHNAN A/L...?
1. ) LOGAN A/L SEGARAN 2. ) PARTHIPAN A/L RATHAKRISHNAN 3. ) RAMAKRISHNAN A/L... is a High Court decision dated December 21, 2025. The case was heard by Narkunavathy Sundareson. See the full judgment for details.