A
Ahilan a/l Eranian
Person 1 case
Ahilan a/l Eranian appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
ba-24-26-11-2024
1. ) LOGAN A/L SEGARAN 2. ) PARTHIPAN A/L RATHAKRISHNAN 3. ) RAMAKRISHNAN A/L MASEE 4. ) MANORAJ A/L SEGARAN 5. ) HEMANATHAN A/L SELVARAJAH 6. ) RAVISHANKAR A/L KRISHNASAMY 7. ) DEENESKUMAR A/L GANESAN 8. ) SEVA SHANGAR A/L GNAPERAKASAM 9. ) ARIVINTHAN A/L SEKKAR 10. ) SARAVANAN A/L RAVINDRAN 11. ) SHEARVIN RAJOO A/L JOHN 12. ) XAVIER A/L MANOHAR 13. ) CARIS LUWDON A/L LOURDASAMY 14. ) AHILAN A/L ERANIAN 15. ) S.ARUMUGAM A/L SUPPIAH 16. ) ROBINSON A/L LOBAT 17. ) MAHENDRAN A/L VIJAYAN 18. ) T...
MYHC 21 December 2025
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About Ahilan a/l Eranian
Ahilan a/l Eranian appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning December 2025 to December 2025. Ahilan a/l Eranian appeared as applicant in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve Ahilan a/l Eranian?
Ahilan a/l Eranian appears in 1 published judgment from December 2025 to December 2025. Most commonly as applicant (1 cases).
Practice Areas
The application seeks to invalidate sections 4(5), 13, 14, 15, 16, 18A, 20 and/or 30 contravening Articles 8, 121(1) and/or 149 Although sections 4(5), 13, 14 to 16, 18A and 20 modify traditional procedural or evidentiary rules, they do not displace the core adjudicatory function of the Judiciary. Under these provisions, the Court retains judicial oversight in that they retain the inherent power to assess the credibility, weight, and relevance of evidence. The Judiciary remains the final arbiter of fact. As these measures allow the detenu a chance to challenge the prosecution’s case, they remain consistent with the right to a fair trial under Article 5 and are shielded by the special legislative powers granted under Article 149. Sections 4(5), 13, 14 to 16, 18A and 20 also satisfy the satisfy the principle of proportionality and have a rational nexus with the objective of SOSMA. 1 This Court holds that mandatory remand requirement in section 30 violates the sanctity of judicial powers vested in the Judiciary and ignores the role of Judges as arbiters. 1 While the Legislature maintains the authority to enact special measures for security offences under Article 149, those laws cannot completely extinguish the core adjudicatory functions of the Judiciary. Therefore, Section 30 is struck down as an impermissible abrogation of judicial power under Article 121(1). 1