YESYURUN A/L CHANDRAN v 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, KEMENTERIAN DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA , POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 3. ) KETUA POLIS DAREAH JOHOR BAHRU SELATAN, JOHOR

Case Significance

A preventive restriction order under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 quashed on judicial review for failure to exercise the decision-maker's mind, apprehended bias and want of proper interpretation.

This High Court decision concerns an application for judicial review challenging a restriction order made against the applicant under section 6(3) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, a statute permitting the executive to restrict the movements and residence of persons associated with drug activity as a preventive measure rather than through a criminal conviction. The applicant sought declarations that the order dated 20 December 2024 was invalid as contravening the Act and Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 149 and 151 of the Federal Constitution, and an order of certiorari to quash it.

Because such an order deprives a person of liberty without a trial, the court scrutinises whether the deciding authority genuinely applied its mind to the material and whether the procedural safeguards were observed. Several defects were advanced. The order itself appeared internally inconsistent, specifying two different reporting locations, which suggested that the authority had not properly exercised its mind when issuing it. The supporting affidavit contained errors that required a corrective affidavit. A narcotics police officer had acted as the interpreter during the inquiry, which gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, the interpreter being drawn from the very enforcement arm concerned with the applicant's case. More broadly, the investigation and inquiry under the Act had not followed a consistent and uniform process, and, of particular significance, the material had been prepared without the benefit of a Tamil interpreter for the applicant.

The Court found these defects made out and allowed the application, quashing the restriction order, with no order as to costs. The judgment is a useful illustration of the procedural fairness the courts require before a preventive restriction order under the 1985 Act can stand — genuine exercise of the decision-maker's mind, freedom from a reasonable apprehension of bias in the conduct of the inquiry, and the provision of proper interpretation to a person who does not follow the language of the proceedings.