Fact of the case:

Three Muslim men who worked as a bridal make up artist named Muhamad Juzaili Mohamad

Khamis (26), Syukor Jani (28), and Wan Fairol Wan Ismail (30) are being arrested,

prosecuted and sexual abuse by the religious authority of Negeri Sembilan. Therefore, they

decided to apply for judicial review to High Court of Seremban about Section 66 of the

Negeri Sembilan Syariah Criminal Enactment 1992 is unconstitutional and did not apply to

them as Gender Identity Disorder sufferers (Korn, 2020).

Issue of the case:

The issue of the case is to know either Section 66 of the Negeri Sembilan Syariah Criminal

Enactments 1992 is void or not because inconsistent with the following Articles of Federal

Constitution, namely, (Korn, 2020)

a) Art. 5(1)

b) Art. 8(1)

c) Art. 8(2)

d) Art. 9(2)

e) Art. 10(1)(a)

Judgement by High Court:

According to Bernama (2015), " on October 11, 2012, The Seremban High Court dismissed

the three transgenders judicial review application and ruled that their rights under the Federal

Constitution were to be disregarded as they were by virtue born male and Muslim". 
Judgement by Court of Appeal:

According to Suparmaniam (2015), the Court of Appeal decided that the Section 66 of the

Negeri Sembilan Syariah Criminal Enactments 1992 on anti-cross dressing was void and

unconstitutional. This is because of the Shariah law is inconsistent with Article of Federal

Consititution, namely,

a) Art. 5(1) of the constitution which guarantees that "no person shall be deprived of his life

and personal liberty save in accordance with law".

b) Art. 8(1)'s that guarantee equal protection of law.

c) Art. 8(2)'s that prohibit on discrimination on gender grounds.

d) Art. 9(2)'s which guarantees freedom of movement 

e) Art. 10(1)(a)'s that guarantee protection of the freedom of expression (Korn, 2020).

Judgement by Federal Court:

According to Suparmanian (2015),  the Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal's

decision in November that the Shariah law on anti-cross dressing was unconstitutional and

void. This happen after the Federal Court heard the appeal by the Negeri Sembilan

goverment, Negeri Sembilan Department of Islamic Religious Affairs, its director, the Negeri

Sembilan Sariah enforcement chief, and the Negeri Sembilan Chief Syarie prosecutor. In

addition. the Federal Court told to Bernama that the three transgenders used the wrong legal

channel to challenge the Syariah enactment because they need to brought their challenge

directly to Federal Court. They can only brought the challenge to High Court or Court of

Appeal when there is any previous decision made by public authority that they want to
challenge. Therefore, judicial review made by those transgenders are consider premature and

High Court and Court of Appeal should not entertained their application (Bernama, 2015).

Reference:

Bernama. (2015, August 13). Transgendere filed wrong legal action to challenge State

Syariah Enactment. Astro Awani. https://www.astroawani.com/berita-

malaysia/transgenders-filed-wrong-legal-action-challenge-state-syariah-enactment-

69698

Korn, J. (2020, May 12). Constitutionalizing transgender rights in Malaysia. Islamic Law

Blog. https://islamiclaw.blog/2020/05/12/jonathan-korn-2/

Suparmaniam, S. (2015, October 8). Transgender case: Federal Court overturns Court of

Appeal's decision. Astro Awani. https://www.astroawani.com/berita-

malaysia/transgender-case-federal-court-overturns-court-appeals-decision-75716