Constitutional Law
250 cases · October 2017 to June 2026
Overview
Constitutional Law appears in 250 reported Malaysia judgments (2017–2026).
In this practice area
Constitutional Law collects the judgments in which the Federal Constitution is the decisive instrument — the guarantee of fundamental liberties, the separation of powers, and the limits the Constitution places on legislative and executive action. The area sits at the apex of the corpus, with a larger proportion of its cases decided by the Federal Court than any other subject.
Fundamental liberties are a central theme. Judgments examine the right to life and personal liberty under Article 5, equality and equal protection under Article 8, and the freedoms of speech and assembly under Article 10 together with the permissible restrictions each carries. The collection includes challenges to corporal punishment framed as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and the compatibility of statutory offences — such as the "offensive" and "annoy" language of section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 — with the constitutional guarantee of expression, decided against the presumption of constitutionality.
Structural questions recur alongside rights. Judgments consider Article 4 and the supremacy of the Constitution, the original jurisdiction of the Federal Court under Article 4(3) and (4) and Article 128, and the boundary between civil and Syariah jurisdiction under Article 121. The abolition of the mandatory death penalty and the constitutional review of sentencing also appear where a punishment is challenged against Articles 5 and 8.
The cases are concentrated at the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal, with the High Court hearing constitutional challenges at first instance. As a whole the area shows how the Malaysian courts mediate between the individual and the state — reading the fundamental-liberties guarantees purposively while respecting the space the Constitution leaves to Parliament to impose restrictions that are permissible and proportionate. Because these questions carry the widest public significance, the judgments are among the most closely reasoned in the corpus and are frequently cited across the other areas.
Case Volume by Year
2 17
9 18
6 19
5 20
7 21
4 22
8 23
31 24
117 25
61 26
2017–2026
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Federal Constitution — Articles 5(1), 8(1) and 8(2) Fundamental liberties — Life and personal liberty — Human dignity — Equal protection of the law — Whether it is in violation of medical ethics for medical officer to be participate in the execution of whipping. 3 Equality before the law — Article 8 of Federal Constitution — Tort damages — Denial of bionic prosthesis based on plaintiff’s village lifestyle and former occupation as car washer — Held to be a form of socio‑economic discrimination — No place in law of tort. 1 Freedom of religion — Civil Court jurisdiction — Distinction between ab initio claim and renunciation of Islam — Whether Civil Court had jurisdiction to determine whether Plaintiff ever fell within constitutional category of “persons professing the religion of Islam” — Federal Constitution arts 11(1), 12(4), 121(1A), Ninth Schedule List II Item 1 1 Syariah jurisdiction — Whether acceptance of Plaintiff’s argument would collapse distinction between ab initio claims and renunciation claims under Rosliza and Lina Joy 1 Minor — Religion — Article 12(4) Federal Constitution — Determination of religion — Biological parentage — Administrative classification of religion — 1 Public Prosecutor — Prosecutorial discretion — Power to institute, conduct or discontinue criminal proceedings — Federal Constitution art 145(3) 1 Prosecutorial discretion — Judicial review — Scope of review — Presumption of legality — Requirement of compelling prima facie evidence — Sundra Rajoo a/l Nadarajah v Menteri Luar Negeri, Malaysia & Ors [2021] 5 MLJ 209 1 Right to property — Adequate compensation — Article 13(2) of Federal Constitution — Whether deprivation of property occurred — Plaintiff had voluntarily agreed to surrender land — No entitlement to constitutional protection for property already committed to State 1 Public Prosecutor’s discretion — Scope and limits — Whether discretion unfettered — Application of Art 145(3) Federal Constitution — Whether prosecution acted irrationally, mala fide or oppressively — Effect of Sundra Rajoo decision 1 Article 5(1) — Right to life and personal liberty — Whether repeated reprosecution after DNAA violates constitutional fairness — Criminal Procedure Code as “law” under Art 5(1) 1 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 Citizenship — Citizenship by operation of law — Article 14(1)(b) Federal Constitution — Part II Second Schedule ss 1(a), 1(e), 2(3) — Requirement of jus soli and jus sanguinis — Whether proof of both required — Illegitimate child — Whether citizenship follows biological father or mother — Interpretation of “parents” under s 17 Second Schedule — Whether child born in Malaysia but to non-citizen mother entitled to citizenship — Whether child stateless — Binding effect of Federal Court decision — Appeal dismissed 1 Citizenship — Illegitimate child — Section 17 Second Schedule Federal Constitution — “Parents” construed as mother — Jus sanguinis traced to biological mother — Whether child born to foreign mother acquires foreign citizenship at birth — Burden of proof — Whether plaintiffs proved child not a citizen of any country — Failure to prove — Citizenship claim rejected 1 Citizenship — Article 14(1)(b) read with s 1(e) Second Schedule — Phrase “not born a citizen of any country” — Whether imports jus sanguinis requirement — Necessity to prove lineage at time of birth — Whether child capable of acquiring Cambodian citizenship — No statelessness — Claim fails 1 Citizenship — Article 14(1)(b) read with s 1(a) Second Schedule — Requirement that one parent be citizen or permanent resident — Illegitimate child — Whether biological father can be relied upon — Section 17 applies — “Parent” refers to mother — Requirement not satisfied — No entitlement to citizenship 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 Citizenship — Application for declaration of citizenship by operation of law — Federal Constitution art. 14(1)(b), Second Schedule Part II para. 1(a) & (e) — Plaintiff born in Malaysia to Indonesian parents — Parents not citizens or permanent residents — Whether Plaintiff “not born a citizen of any country” — Concept of jus soli and jus sanguinis — Statelessness — – Nature of citizenship by naturalisation — Not a birthright — Application must be made to Federal Government — Whether court has jurisdiction to confer citizenship — Separation of powers — Interpretation of Constitution — Interpretation of para. 1(e) Part II Second Schedule — Authorities considered: CTEB & Anor v Ketua Pengarah Pendaftaran Negara, Malaysia & Ors [2021] 6 CLJ 471; Pendaftar Besar Kelahiran dan Kematian, Malaysia v Pang Wee See & Anor [2017] 7 CLJ 33; Than Siew Beng & Anor v Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara & Ors [2017] 8 CLJ 16 — Court cannot usurp executive powers — Application for naturalisation must be made to Federal Government — Abuse of process — Originating Summons dismissed. 1 Citizenship by operation of law — Citizenship by operation of law by virtue of s 1(a) of Part II read together with s 19B of Part III of Second Schedule of Federal Constitution — Child born in hospital in Malaysia — Identity of birth mother unknown — Malaysian citizen couple adopted abandoned child — Birth certificate stated child as non-citizen —‘Any newborn child found exposed in any place’ — Whether child entitled to citizenship by operation of law — Federal Constitution Second Schedule, Part III, s 19B 1
+ 10 more
Federal Constitution — Articles 5(1), 8(1) and 8(2) Fundamental liberties — Life and personal liberty — Human dignity — Equal protection of the law — Whether it is in violation of medical ethics for medical officer to be participate in the execution of whipping. 3 cases
05rj-6-11-2024c SIVACHANDRAN A/L S JAYARAJAH v Pendakwa Raya
21 April 2026
07-23-11-2024w MOHD HELMI ANUAR BIN MOHD KASSIM v Pendakwa Raya PEGUAM PEMERHATI Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia (SUHAKAM) AMICUS CURIAE Collin Arvind Andrew
21 April 2026
07-24-11-2024w KUMANAAN A/L ANTHONY VINCENT v Pendakwa Raya PEGUAM PEMERHATI Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia (SUHAKAM) AMICUS CURIAE Collin Arvind Andrew
21 April 2026
Equality before the law — Article 8 of Federal Constitution — Tort damages — Denial of bionic prosthesis based on plaintiff’s village lifestyle and former occupation as car washer — Held to be a form of socio‑economic discrimination — No place in law of tort. 1 case
Freedom of religion — Civil Court jurisdiction — Distinction between ab initio claim and renunciation of Islam — Whether Civil Court had jurisdiction to determine whether Plaintiff ever fell within constitutional category of “persons professing the religion of Islam” — Federal Constitution arts 11(1), 12(4), 121(1A), Ninth Schedule List II Item 1 1 case
Syariah jurisdiction — Whether acceptance of Plaintiff’s argument would collapse distinction between ab initio claims and renunciation claims under Rosliza and Lina Joy 1 case
Minor — Religion — Article 12(4) Federal Constitution — Determination of religion — Biological parentage — Administrative classification of religion — 1 case
Public Prosecutor — Prosecutorial discretion — Power to institute, conduct or discontinue criminal proceedings — Federal Constitution art 145(3) 1 case
Prosecutorial discretion — Judicial review — Scope of review — Presumption of legality — Requirement of compelling prima facie evidence — Sundra Rajoo a/l Nadarajah v Menteri Luar Negeri, Malaysia & Ors [2021] 5 MLJ 209 1 case
Right to property — Adequate compensation — Article 13(2) of Federal Constitution — Whether deprivation of property occurred — Plaintiff had voluntarily agreed to surrender land — No entitlement to constitutional protection for property already committed to State 1 case
Public Prosecutor’s discretion — Scope and limits — Whether discretion unfettered — Application of Art 145(3) Federal Constitution — Whether prosecution acted irrationally, mala fide or oppressively — Effect of Sundra Rajoo decision 1 case
Article 5(1) — Right to life and personal liberty — Whether repeated reprosecution after DNAA violates constitutional fairness — Criminal Procedure Code as “law” under Art 5(1) 1 case
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
Citizenship — Citizenship by operation of law — Article 14(1)(b) Federal Constitution — Part II Second Schedule ss 1(a), 1(e), 2(3) — Requirement of jus soli and jus sanguinis — Whether proof of both required — Illegitimate child — Whether citizenship follows biological father or mother — Interpretation of “parents” under s 17 Second Schedule — Whether child born in Malaysia but to non-citizen mother entitled to citizenship — Whether child stateless — Binding effect of Federal Court decision — Appeal dismissed 1 case
Citizenship — Illegitimate child — Section 17 Second Schedule Federal Constitution — “Parents” construed as mother — Jus sanguinis traced to biological mother — Whether child born to foreign mother acquires foreign citizenship at birth — Burden of proof — Whether plaintiffs proved child not a citizen of any country — Failure to prove — Citizenship claim rejected 1 case
Citizenship — Article 14(1)(b) read with s 1(e) Second Schedule — Phrase “not born a citizen of any country” — Whether imports jus sanguinis requirement — Necessity to prove lineage at time of birth — Whether child capable of acquiring Cambodian citizenship — No statelessness — Claim fails 1 case
Citizenship — Article 14(1)(b) read with s 1(a) Second Schedule — Requirement that one parent be citizen or permanent resident — Illegitimate child — Whether biological father can be relied upon — Section 17 applies — “Parent” refers to mother — Requirement not satisfied — No entitlement to citizenship 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
Citizenship by operation of law — Citizenship by operation of law by virtue of s 1(a) of Part II read together with s 19B of Part III of Second Schedule of Federal Constitution — Child born in hospital in Malaysia — Identity of birth mother unknown — Malaysian citizen couple adopted abandoned child — Birth certificate stated child as non-citizen —‘Any newborn child found exposed in any place’ — Whether child entitled to citizenship by operation of law — Federal Constitution Second Schedule, Part III, s 19B 1 case
Citizenship by operation of law — Citizenship by operation of law by virtue of s 1(e) read together with s 2(3) of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution — “Not born a citizen of any country” — Meaning 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 106 cases Rules of Court 2012
cited in 36 cases Penal Code (Cap 574)
cited in 23 cases Criminal Procedure Code
cited in 22 cases National Land Code (Cap 828)
cited in 16 cases Courts of Judicature Act 1964
cited in 15 cases Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
cited in 15 cases Land Acquisition Act 1960 (Cap 486)
cited in 10 cases Specific Relief Act 1950 (Cap 137)
cited in 8 cases Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
cited in 7 cases Pool Betting Act 1967
cited in 6 cases National Land Code 1965 (Cap 56)
cited in 5 cases Communications and Multimedia Act 1998
cited in 4 cases Interpretation Act
cited in 4 cases Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)
cited in 4 cases Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Azizah binti Haji Nawawi 29 Nallini Pathmanathan 24 Wan Ahmad Farid bin Wan Salleh 21 Rhodzariah binti Bujang 20 Tengku Maimun binti Tuan Mat 15 Faizah binti Jamaludin 14 Che Mohd Ruzima bin Ghazali 13 Azhahari Kamal bin Ramli 13 Collin Lawrence Sequerah 11 Zabariah binti Mohd Yusof 11 Ramly bin Haji Ali 11 Panglima Richard Malanjum 11 Utama Wan Ahmad Farid bin Wan Salleh 10 Mohd Nazlan bin Mohd Ghazali 10 Abu Bakar bin Jais 10
Top Firms
Jabatan Peguam Negara 18 Attorney General's Chambers 10 Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Johor 8 Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kedah 6 Cheang & Ariff 6 Mah Weng Kwai & Associates 5 Attorney General's Chamber 5 Daim & Gamany 4 Skrine 4 Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Kementerian Dalam Negeri 3 Collin's Law Chambers 3 SP Chanra 3 Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang 3 Sreekant Pillai 3 Fahri, Azzat & Co. 3
Top Lawyers
Saifulrijal bin Azhari 6 Norhayati binti Ibrahim 6 Nurul Liyana binti Mohammad Nasir 6 Brian Foong Mun Loong 6 Eolanda Yeo Jin Huay 6 Muhammad Hiqmar Danial bin Hidzir 6 Nur Ellyana Farina binti Muhammad Ello 6 Mohammad Sallehuddin Bin Md Ali 5 Vijay Raj 4 Ratha a/p Govindasamy 4 Diba Natalia Ishak 4 Tan Hui Sen 4 Neshel a/l Inbashekaran 4 Simran Kaur 4 New Sin Yew 3
How many Constitutional Law cases are reported in Malaysia courts?
250 reported Malaysia judgments (2017–2026) involve Constitutional Law.
What questions does Constitutional Law address?
It addresses the fundamental liberties in Part II of the Federal Constitution — life and personal liberty under Article 5, equality under Article 8, and speech and assembly under Article 10 — together with structural questions of supremacy under Article 4 and the boundary between civil and Syariah jurisdiction under Article 121.
How do the courts test whether a statute is constitutional?
The judgments apply the presumption of constitutionality and ask whether a restriction falls within the permissible limits the Constitution allows, increasingly through a proportionality analysis. Challenges to provisions such as section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 are decided against that framework.
Which court decides most constitutional cases?
A larger share of constitutional cases reaches the Federal Court than in any other area, reflecting its role as the final arbiter of the Constitution and its original jurisdiction under Articles 4 and 128, with the Court of Appeal and the High Court hearing such challenges below.
Cases
Page 2 of 10w-01a-408-06-2024
1. ) TAN KAR CHAI 2. ) TAN LAI HO v 1. ) PENDAFTAR BESAR KELAHIRAN DAN KEMATIAN JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA MALAYSIA 2. ) kementerian dalam negeri, malaysia 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia
20 April 2026
MYCOA
05rj-1-03-2025a
NOMALAN A/L RAMAYAH v Pendakwa Raya
19 April 2026
MYFC
05rj-2-03-2025n
MUHAMAD HAFIZUL HAFIQ BIN MASRI v Pendakwa Raya
19 April 2026
MYFC
05rj-3-03-2025b
HARICHANDRAN A/L S.NADARAJAN v Pendakwa Raya
19 April 2026
MYFC
05rj-4-03-2025j
LEONG SOON LONG v Pendakwa Raya
19 April 2026
MYFC
05rj-5-03-2025j
WONG SOON HENG v Pendakwa Raya
19 April 2026
MYFC
05rj-6-03-2025j
NGUYEN DOAN NHAN v Pendakwa Raya
19 April 2026
MYFC
05rj-7-03-2025j
MOHAMAD AIMAN AL-RASHID B YAACOB v Pendakwa Raya
19 April 2026
MYFC
ja-25-34-12-2025
DYNAMIC ENVIRON SDN. BHD. v 1. ) PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 3. ) Agensi Penguatkuasa Maritim Malaysia (APMM)
16 April 2026
MYHC
da-15-181-12-2024
Muhammad Amni Fitri bin Azami v Pentadbir Tanah Jajahan Kota Bharu
15 April 2026
MYHC
cb-25-1-03-2025
MURUGAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM v 1. ) PENGERUSI LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KUMPULAN SOKONGAN (NO.1) JABATAN DAN INSTITUSI KEMENTERIAN KESIHATAN MALAYSIA 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KUMPULAN SOKONGAN (NO.1) JABATAN DAN INSTITUSI KEMENTERIAN KESIHATAN MALAYSIA 3. ) PENGERUSI LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN AWAM 4. ) LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN AWAM 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia
7 April 2026
MYHC
ba-43-11-03-2026
YAYASAN KUBRA v PERSATUAN PENGANUT SRI UCHIMALAI MUNISWARAMAN
30 March 2026
MYHC
da-41lba-1-06-2025
Pendakwa Raya v MOHAMAD REDZUAN BIN MD ANUAR
29 March 2026
MYHC
jb-24ncvc-577-10-2025
TEE ZI HENG v 1. ) KETUA SETIAUSAHA KEMENTERIAN DALAM NEGERI 2. ) PENDAFTAR BESAR KELAHIRAN DAN KEMATIAN JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA MALAYSIA
29 March 2026
MYHC
ma-25-7-09-2025
1. ) XXXX 2. ) LIM KENG YAU 3. ) YAU LEE LEE v KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA
26 March 2026
MYHC
wa-24-130-08-2025
WAYTHA MOORTHY A/L PONNUSAMY v DATO' SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM PIHAK TERKILAN Jabatan Peguam Negara
17 March 2026
MYHC
bka-1-01-2026w
PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD (PETRONAS) v 1. ) KERAJAAN NEGERI SARAWAK 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia
15 March 2026
MYFC
ma-25-9-10-2025
SUNG TIAK KENG v 1. ) Pendakwa Raya [Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (SSM)] 2. ) PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA 3. ) SIANG TIAK HOCK 4. ) KOH KIM HO
12 March 2026
MYHC
ja-42ors-1-12-2025
MUHAMMAD ZAHIER ZAKWAN BIN ZAINAL ABIDIN v Pendakwa Raya
4 March 2026
MYHC
ba-25-6-01-2024
LIM VUI FOH v 1. ) JABATAN AGAMA ISLAM PAHANG 2. ) Majlis Ugama Islam dan Adat Resam Melayu Pahang 3. ) Kerajaan Negeri Pahang 4. ) JABATAN AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR 5. ) MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR (MAIS) 6. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor 7. ) Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) 8. ) Kerajaan Malaysia
26 February 2026
MYHC
aa-25-25-08-2024
AZIZUL RAHMAN BIN MOHAMMAD @ NADZRI v 1. ) DATO' NOR SHAM BINTI RAHMAN 2. ) JAWATANKUASA TATATERTIB PERBADANAN SETIAUSAHA KERAJAAN NEGERI PERAK 3. ) DATO' HAJI AB. RAHMAN THOBRONI BIN MOHD MANSOR 4. ) JAWATANKUASA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERBADANAN SETIAUSAHA KERAJAAN NEGERI PERAK 5. ) DATO' AHMAD SUAIDI BIN ABDUL RAHIM 6. ) PERBADANAN SETIAUSAHA KERAJAAN NEGERI PERAK
24 February 2026
MYHC
aa-44-26-05-2025
AZMIR BIN SHAMSUDDIN v Pendakwa Raya [Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN)]
23 February 2026
MYHC
ta-24-2-12-2024
ISMAIL BIN MAMAT v 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Besut 2. ) Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu 3. ) Jabatan Ketua Pengarah Tanah & Galian (JKPTG)
15 February 2026
MYHC
w-01a-326-05-2024
1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia v Mohd Idzuddin Bin Mazli
15 February 2026
MYCOA
w-01a-335-05-2024
1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 2. ) Ketua Polis Negara 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia v Mohd Aiman Bin Balpaki
15 February 2026
MYCOA