Suruhanjaya Komunikasi Dan Multimedia Malaysia, Cyberjaya

On the court record

A communications regulator across judicial review, an online-content injunction against messaging channels, and a constitutional challenge to section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.

Suruhanjaya Komunikasi dan Multimedia Malaysia, Cyberjaya, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission, appears in the corpus as a statutory regulator across judicial review, online-content injunction, and constitutional proceedings under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.

One matter arose from a judicial review in which the Commission was involved as a respondent and aggrieved party, concerning an application to set aside an ex parte leave order on the ground of illegality for breach of section 121 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 and an alleged failure to make full and frank disclosure.

A second matter, in which the Commission was plaintiff, sought interim injunctive relief against the administrators of two Telegram channels and the messaging service provider, alleged to be responsible for publishing false, malicious and offensive content. The Commission sought mandatory and prohibitory injunctions, including the removal of impugned content, the closure of channels and the disclosure of administrator details. The court granted prohibitory injunctions restraining the defendants from continuing to publish or republish the specified impugned content, but refused, at that stage and without prejudice to relief at trial, the mandatory injunctions to close the channels or future channels and to disclose administrator details. The unknown administrators are referred to by their role, consistent with the treatment of natural persons who appear only as parties.

A third matter, at apex level, concerned a constitutional challenge to section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, engaging Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution on freedom of speech and expression and the permissible restrictions under Article 10(2)(a). The catchwords record the words offensive and annoy in section 233(1)(a), the presumption of constitutionality, the principle of reading down, and the effect of striking out those words, with the Commission appearing as an intervener.

These proceedings show the regulator across enforcement, content control and constitutional interpretation. Outcomes are stated only as recorded.