Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan

On the court record

Illustrates how the courts test State legislation against the Federal Constitution, review State decisions on licensing and natural resources, and adjudicate substantial claims brought against the State.

The Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan (the Kelantan State Government) appears in this corpus predominantly as a respondent or defendant, in constitutional, administrative and land litigation touching the exercise of State power. The most prominent matter engages the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Federal Court under Article 4(3) and (4) and Article 128(1) of the Federal Constitution, in a challenge to the constitutional validity of provisions of the State's Syariah criminal legislation on the ground that they fell outside the legislative competence of the State — a decision of first importance for the division of legislative power between Parliament and the State legislatures. A second strand concerns the State's control of natural resources: judicial review of a refusal by the State Authority to renew a mining or prospecting licence, and applications for the discovery of statutory documents in such proceedings. The corpus also includes large civil claims against the State, including a claim by hundreds of plaintiffs for compensation in respect of land within a planned development or settlement area whose claims were struck out, and procedural questions such as security for costs where a plaintiff resides outside the jurisdiction. Because the State Government exercises legislative, proprietary and regulatory authority within its constitutional sphere, many decisions concern the limits of that authority and the correct forum for a challenge. The matters are decided in the High Court and the Federal Court. Collectively the decisions in which the Kelantan State Government is a party illustrate how the courts test State legislation against the Federal Constitution, review State decisions on licensing and natural resources, and adjudicate substantial claims brought against the State. Several of the reported matters also concern the procedural discipline attaching to a challenge against the State, including the striking out of claims and the security a non-resident plaintiff may be required to provide, so that the decisions turn on both the substance of the dispute and the conditions on which the State may be sued. Across these matters the courts mark the limits of State legislative, proprietary and regulatory authority.