MAGHESWARAN A/L SUPRAMANIAM v 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 3. ) KETUA POLIS DAERAH KUBANG PASU,KEDAH

Case Significance

Illustrates the limited scope of judicial review of a preventive restriction order under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 for procedural non-compliance, the court holding that no statutory time limit governs the making of such an order and that the applicant had shown no procedural breach.

This High Court decision concerns a substantive application for judicial review challenging a restriction order made under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985. The applicant, who had been arrested and then made the subject of a two-year restriction order confining him to a district in Kedah, sought declarations that the order was invalid as contrary to several articles of the Federal Constitution and to the Act, an order of certiorari to quash it, and related relief, contending that the process leading to the order was tainted by numerous procedural breaches — including failures in the investigation and inquiry, non-service of the order and documents, absence of reasons, and delay. The court examined each complaint against the statutory scheme. It held that where an inquiry officer had exercised his discretion not to record a statement from the applicant but instead took his evidence orally, the failure to supply a recorded statement was not a procedural breach, since no statement had been recorded. It held that the complaints of delay by the investigating officer, the inquiry officer and the Deputy Minister were unfounded, because nothing in the Act prescribed a time within which their reports or the restriction order had to be prepared; applying the reasoning approved in Lee Kew Sang and Muhammad Redzuan Omar, the court reiterated that there is no requirement in the law or the rules that a detention or restriction order be made within a certain period, no limitation period exists, and it is not the court's function to create one. Finding that the applicant had failed to establish any procedural non-compliance in the making of the restriction order, the court dismissed the application. The court's approach confirms that judicial review of a preventive order of this kind is directed at whether the prescribed procedure was followed, not at the merits of the executive's assessment, and that a bare assertion of delay or of unsupplied documents, without a statutory footing, cannot found relief. The judgment illustrates the limited scope of judicial review of a preventive restriction order under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 for procedural non-compliance.