MURUGAYA A/L CHELLACHAMY v 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGERI SELANGOR 4. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Case Significance

Illustrates the narrow grounds — illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety — for judicial review of preventive detention under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns a judicial review challenge to preventive-detention measures imposed under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 (Act 316). The applicant had been the subject of a detention order and a subsequent suspension of that detention order, made under section 7(1) of the Act, which imposed conditions and restraints on him, and he applied for certiorari and a declaration to quash the suspension order and to release him from its conditions. The review engaged the substantive provisions of Act 316 governing the detention regime, the procedures of the Advisory Board and its associated rules, section 28A of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the constitutional protections in Articles 5, 7, 149 and 151 of the Federal Constitution. The Court examined the applicant’s complaints about the conduct of the representation proceedings before the Advisory Board, including the non-production of a witness. It held that the respondents could not be faulted for failing to produce that witness, since the applicant and his counsel had declined to bear the cost and had not sought a postponement, and it accepted the affidavits of the Secretary to the Advisory Board and the Superintendent of Prisons explaining the position. Applying the Federal Court’s guidance in Selva Vinayagam Sures v Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, the Court found that the three legal requirements identified in that authority had been met, that the detaining authority had applied its mind to the facts, and that there was no procedural irregularity impairing the detention. Finding no procedural non-compliance, illegality or irrationality, the Court, per Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz J, held that the applicant had failed to prove his case and dismissed the judicial review application with no order as to costs. The judgment illustrates the limited grounds — illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety — on which preventive detention under Act 316 may be reviewed.