Constitutional law
13 cases · September 2018 to November 2025
Case Volume by Year
1 18
5 19
2 20
1 22
4 25
2018–2025
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution — Discrimination — Provision applies to public law and administration by a public authority — Not applicable to disputes arising from private commercial contracts voluntarily entered into by parties. 1 Citizenship by operation of law — Illegitimate child — Whether an illegitimate child at the time of birth qualifies for citizenship by operation of law — Federal Constitution, Art 14(1)(b). 1 Article 10(1)(b) Federal Constitution — Right to peaceful assembly — Article 10(2)(b) FC — Parliamentary restrictions on assembly rights — Article 8(1) FC — Equality before the law & proportionality — Article 4(1) FC — Void laws inconsistent with the Constitution — Peaceful assembly — Notification of assembly — Requirement of giving ten days’ notice to police — Organiser failed to give police ten days’ notice — Whether requirement to give notice reasonable — Whether non-compliance to give required notice detrimental to organiser — Whether in breach of safeguarding provisions — Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 s 9(1) & (5) 1 Jurisdiction — Whether civil court or Syariah Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine application for declaration of a person’s identity. Whether ab initio or renunciation case — Whether identity card — proof of a person’s religion. Federal Constitution — Article 121(1A) — Syariah Court (Perak) Enactment — s.17(2)(b)(xiv) — Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004 — s. 2 — Rules of Court 2012 — O. 53 — Specific Relief Act 1950 — s. 41 1 Legislation — validity of legislation — whether Parliament has power and/or competent to enact any provisions that regulates matters relating to Islamic Medicine and Malay Traditional Medicine — sections 25 and 26 of the Act — Islamic Medicine and Malay Traditional Medicine (ACT 775) — Challenge Based On Article 38(4) Of The Federal Constitution — The Doctrine Of Pith And Substance - 1 the validity of impugned legislation — the sentence of mandatory death penalty for trafficking under section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act and section 302 of the Penal Code for murder — Whether the said provisions were unconstitutional — Whether the said provisions can be struck down for violating Articles 5(1), 8(1) and 121 of the Federal Constitution — Whether death penalty is the proportionate punishment for the offence — Whether alternative punishments should be made available and the Court be given discretion to impose suitable punishment — Whether the Court should simply implement punishment prescribed by Parliament without question 1 Legislature — Whether Section 28 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995 (‘s 28’) enacted by Selangor State Legislature had legislated a matter in the Federal List in Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution — Item 4(h) of the Federal List — Section 377A of the Penal Code — Whether applicant ought to be granted leave pursuant to Article 4(4) of the Federal Constitution in challenging the constitutionality of s 28 — Whether applicant has fulfilled the requirements under Article 4(3) for leave to be granted on the ground of lack of competency by Selangor State Legislature to enact s 28 1 Gag order — Article 126 FC — S 13 Court Judicature Act — whether Court has jurisdiction to issue gag order — whether court should adopt prismatic construction of A 126 FC and S 13 CJA — whether court should grant gag order when the country has abolished trials by jury — test for gag order — whether appellant had fulfilled the test — whether there is real and substantial risk to the fairness of the trial — whether it is necessary and proportionate to grant gag order 1 Article 121 — Islamic banking — Section 57 of CBMA 2009 — ruling of SAC is binding on High Court — whether Section 57 vested judicial power to the Shariah Advisory Council — whether section 57 CBMA is valid and constitutional 1 Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009 S 56,57 — Shariah Advisory Council — whether section 56,57 of CBMA breaches Federal Constitution for having the effect of vesting judicial power in the Shariah Advisory Council — whether the provisions violates doctrine of separation of power — whether Parliament can set up a legislative mechanism in relation to Islamic financial business — whether Court is bound to advice by SAC — whether the impugned provision intrudes onto judicial power 1 Legislation — Constitutionality — Sections 56 and 57 of the Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009 (CBMA) — Whether unconstitutional and void — Whether in contravention of Article 74 of the Federal Constitution (‘FC’) read together with Ninth Schedule for vesting judicial power in the Shariah Advisory Council (‘SAC’) to ascertain Islamic law — Whether in contravention of Article 121 of FC for vesting judicial power in the SAC — Whether in contravention of Article 8 of FC for denying a litigant substantive due process — Whether the court entitled to admit and consider expert evidence concerning shariah matter relating to Islamic financial business Constitutional law — Judicial power — Civil court — Whether civil court possesses judicial power to decide on Shariah matters — Matter of Islamic banking — Whether SAC as a non-judicial entity possesses judicial power — Whether SAC is the sole authority for ascertainment of Islamic law for purposes of Islamic financial business -Whether ruling solely confined to Shariah issues — Whether the SAC final decision is a ruling and not determination — Whether SAC usurps judicial power of civil court by violating the doctrine of separation of powers — Whether SAC ruling binding on civil court 1 constitutionality of statute — A 5, 8, 121 FC — s 37A Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — whether the use of double presumptions under s 37A is constitutional — whether insertion of s 37A contravenes the principle of separation of powers — whether s 37A violates Articles 5 & 8 of FC — whether the use of ‘deemed possession’ under s 37(d) of DDA denied the accused of fair trial — presumption of innocence — whether s 37A violates presumption of innocence — whether requirement of the accused to rebut the presumptions violates the presumption of innocence — whether the decision in Muhammed bin Hassan v Public Prosecutor [1998] 2 MLJ 273 remained valid — whether trafficking presumption could only be invoked if trial court had found evidence of possession affirmatively — duty of the court to adopt prismatic approach in interpreting fundamental rights — doctrine of proportionality on statutory presumptions -- whether double presumptions satisfy the requirement of proportionality — whether enactment of s 37A intrudes into judicial power 1 Constitutional questions — s 84 of Court Judicature Act 1964 — Whether the appointments of the second respondent and third respondent as Chief Justice of Malaysia and the President Court of Appeal respectively after their mandatory retirements are valid and constitutional — Federal Constitution Article 122,122B,125 — Constitution of Federal Court — Appointment of judges of Federal Court, Court of Appeal and High Courts, Tenure of office and remuneration of judges of Federal Court — Position of Conflict — Challenge of bias — Direct interest — Real possibility of bias — Whether the constitutional questions rendered academic — Public Law exception 1
Citizenship by operation of law — Illegitimate child — Whether an illegitimate child at the time of birth qualifies for citizenship by operation of law — Federal Constitution, Art 14(1)(b). 1 case
Article 10(1)(b) Federal Constitution — Right to peaceful assembly — Article 10(2)(b) FC — Parliamentary restrictions on assembly rights — Article 8(1) FC — Equality before the law & proportionality — Article 4(1) FC — Void laws inconsistent with the Constitution — Peaceful assembly — Notification of assembly — Requirement of giving ten days’ notice to police — Organiser failed to give police ten days’ notice — Whether requirement to give notice reasonable — Whether non-compliance to give required notice detrimental to organiser — Whether in breach of safeguarding provisions — Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 s 9(1) & (5) 1 case
Jurisdiction — Whether civil court or Syariah Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine application for declaration of a person’s identity. Whether ab initio or renunciation case — Whether identity card — proof of a person’s religion. Federal Constitution — Article 121(1A) — Syariah Court (Perak) Enactment — s.17(2)(b)(xiv) — Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004 — s. 2 — Rules of Court 2012 — O. 53 — Specific Relief Act 1950 — s. 41 1 case
Legislation — validity of legislation — whether Parliament has power and/or competent to enact any provisions that regulates matters relating to Islamic Medicine and Malay Traditional Medicine — sections 25 and 26 of the Act — Islamic Medicine and Malay Traditional Medicine (ACT 775) — Challenge Based On Article 38(4) Of The Federal Constitution — The Doctrine Of Pith And Substance - 1 case
the validity of impugned legislation — the sentence of mandatory death penalty for trafficking under section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act and section 302 of the Penal Code for murder — Whether the said provisions were unconstitutional — Whether the said provisions can be struck down for violating Articles 5(1), 8(1) and 121 of the Federal Constitution — Whether death penalty is the proportionate punishment for the offence — Whether alternative punishments should be made available and the Court be given discretion to impose suitable punishment — Whether the Court should simply implement punishment prescribed by Parliament without question 1 case
Legislature — Whether Section 28 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995 (‘s 28’) enacted by Selangor State Legislature had legislated a matter in the Federal List in Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution — Item 4(h) of the Federal List — Section 377A of the Penal Code — Whether applicant ought to be granted leave pursuant to Article 4(4) of the Federal Constitution in challenging the constitutionality of s 28 — Whether applicant has fulfilled the requirements under Article 4(3) for leave to be granted on the ground of lack of competency by Selangor State Legislature to enact s 28 1 case
Gag order — Article 126 FC — S 13 Court Judicature Act — whether Court has jurisdiction to issue gag order — whether court should adopt prismatic construction of A 126 FC and S 13 CJA — whether court should grant gag order when the country has abolished trials by jury — test for gag order — whether appellant had fulfilled the test — whether there is real and substantial risk to the fairness of the trial — whether it is necessary and proportionate to grant gag order 1 case
Article 121 — Islamic banking — Section 57 of CBMA 2009 — ruling of SAC is binding on High Court — whether Section 57 vested judicial power to the Shariah Advisory Council — whether section 57 CBMA is valid and constitutional 1 case
Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009 S 56,57 — Shariah Advisory Council — whether section 56,57 of CBMA breaches Federal Constitution for having the effect of vesting judicial power in the Shariah Advisory Council — whether the provisions violates doctrine of separation of power — whether Parliament can set up a legislative mechanism in relation to Islamic financial business — whether Court is bound to advice by SAC — whether the impugned provision intrudes onto judicial power 1 case
constitutionality of statute — A 5, 8, 121 FC — s 37A Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 — whether the use of double presumptions under s 37A is constitutional — whether insertion of s 37A contravenes the principle of separation of powers — whether s 37A violates Articles 5 & 8 of FC — whether the use of ‘deemed possession’ under s 37(d) of DDA denied the accused of fair trial — presumption of innocence — whether s 37A violates presumption of innocence — whether requirement of the accused to rebut the presumptions violates the presumption of innocence — whether the decision in Muhammed bin Hassan v Public Prosecutor [1998] 2 MLJ 273 remained valid — whether trafficking presumption could only be invoked if trial court had found evidence of possession affirmatively — duty of the court to adopt prismatic approach in interpreting fundamental rights — doctrine of proportionality on statutory presumptions -- whether double presumptions satisfy the requirement of proportionality — whether enactment of s 37A intrudes into judicial power 1 case
Constitutional questions — s 84 of Court Judicature Act 1964 — Whether the appointments of the second respondent and third respondent as Chief Justice of Malaysia and the President Court of Appeal respectively after their mandatory retirements are valid and constitutional — Federal Constitution Article 122,122B,125 — Constitution of Federal Court — Appointment of judges of Federal Court, Court of Appeal and High Courts, Tenure of office and remuneration of judges of Federal Court — Position of Conflict — Challenge of bias — Direct interest — Real possibility of bias — Whether the constitutional questions rendered academic — Public Law exception 1 case
Key Statutes
Federal Constitution
cited in 2 cases Peaceful Assembly Act 2012
cited in 1 case Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Cap 234)
cited in 1 case Penal Code (Cap 574)
cited in 1 case Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)
cited in 1 case
cited in 1 case
cited in 1 case
Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)
cited in 1 case Contracts Act
1950
cited in 1 case Government Proceedings Act 1956
cited in 1 case Contracts
Act 1950
cited in 1 case Contract Act 1950
cited in 1 case Rules of Court 2012
cited in 1 case Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Top Firms
Cases
w-01ncvcw-180-03-2024
GULAM WAWASAN SDN BHD v 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN 3. ) JABATAN PENGURUSAN SISA PEPEJAL NEGARA 4. ) Dato' Sri Haji Mohammad Bin Mentek, Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan 5. ) ISMAIL BIN MOKHTAR, KETUA EKSEKUTIF SOLID WASTE AND PUBLIC CLEANSING MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 6. ) SOLID WASTE AND PUBLIC CLEANSING MANAGEMENT CORPOR
20 November 2025
MYCOA
jb-24ncvc-308-06-2024
1. ) LIM YONG KIM 2. ) LEONG SIEW CHAN (P) 3. ) LIM YONG KIM (WAKIL LITIGASI KEPADA LIM WEI QI BELUM DEWASA) v 1. ) Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Dalam Negeri 2. ) PENDAFTAR BESAR KELAHIRAN DAN KEMATIAN JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA MALAYSIA
17 November 2025
MYHC
06rj-1-08-2024w
AMIR HARIRI BIN ABD HADI v Pendakwa Raya [Jabatan Peguam Negara]
30 June 2025
MYFC
aa-24-7-07-2022
SHIVANISH v 1. ) MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM DAN ADAT MELAYU PERAK 2. ) Kerajaan Negeri Perak
22 April 2025
MYHC
bka-2-11-2021w
RAMLI BIN GHANI v 1. ) KEMENTERIAN KESIHATAN MALAYSIA 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia PEGUAM PEMERHATI 1. MUHAMAD HISHAM BIN MARZUKI (DARUSSYIFA')
16 March 2022
MYFC
05-76-04-2017-j-05-179-08-2017-b-05-214-09-2017-k-05m-118-05-2018-b
1. ) [05-76-04/2017 (J)] LETITIA BOSMAN 2. ) [05-179-08/2017 (B)] JORGE CRESPO GOMEZ 3. ) [05-214-09/2017 (K)] BENJAMIN WILLIAM HAWKES 4. ) [05(M)-118-05/2018 (B)] PUBALAN S/O PEREMAL v PENDAKWA RAYA
12 August 2020
MYFC
bka-3-11-2019w
Iki Putra bin Mubarrak v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor
13 May 2020
MYFC
05l-76-03-2019-w
Dato'Sri Mohd Najib Bin Hj Abd Razak v Public Prosecutor
9 April 2019
MYFC
06-06-07-2017-b
JRI Resources Sdn Bhd v Kuwait Finance House (Malaysia) Berhad PENCELAH (1) President of Association of Islamic Banking Institutions Malaysia (2) Central Bank of Malaysia
9 April 2019
MYFC
06i-06-07-2017-b
JRI Resources Sdn Bhd v Kuwait Finance House (Malaysia) Berhad PENCELAH 1. ) President of Association of Islamic Banking Institutions Malaysia 2. ) Central Bank of Malaysia
9 April 2019
MYFC
06i-06-07-2017b
JRI Resources Sdn Bhd v Kuwait Finance House (Malaysia) Berhad PENCELAH 1) President of Association of Islamic Banking Institutions Malaysia 2) Central Bank of Malaysia
9 April 2019
MYFC
05-94-05-2017-b
Alma Nudo Atenza v Public Prosecutor
4 April 2019
MYFC
06f-1-01-2018w
Bar Council Malaysia v 1. Tun Dato' Seri Arifin bin Zakaria 2. Tun Md Raus bin Sharif 3. Tan Sri Dato' Seri Zulkefli bin Ahmad Makinudin 4. Kerajaan Malaysia PENCELAH Persatuan Peguam-Peguam Muslim Malaysia
23 September 2018
MYFC