Salam, hi, everyone!

I hope you find these helpful as I understand the ability to even

digest one case law can be time-consuming and draining. Don’t fret! These are my
notes from reading all of the case laws and theircase reviews (if any), I hope it helps
<3

Disclaimer; these are merely notes to get a gist of a case and it is not a template
answer. Has been marked by my lecturer but if youfind a mistake, do reach out to
me. All the best and may God bless :>

CASE LAWS IN LAW084

Theme Case Law Content Remarks

Proof of Federal Gov The City -On July 1, 1966, the Chief *the federal
is under Fed Con Council of Minister of Penang took over the law was the
George Town functions of the Mayor, Local
immediately after the State Goverment
& Anor v The
Government proceeded to Elections
Government of
administer the municipal affairs Act 1960
the State of
of the city.
Penang &
-This was done in accordance
Anor
with an order termed the City
Council of George Town
(Transfer of Functions) Order,
1966
-which was inserted in the
Municipal Ordinance by the
Municipal (Amendment)
(Penang) Enactment, 1966, an
enactment of the State
Legislature
-The petitioners (The City
Council of Georgetown & Anor)
applied to the Federal Court
for a declaration that the City
Council of George Town
(Transfer of Functions) Order,
1966 and the Municipal
(Amendment) (Penang)
Enactment, 1966 were void by
virtue of Article 75 of the
Constitution of Malaysia on the
ground that they were
inconsistent with the federal
law*.
-An application was made on
behalf of the respondents (The
Gov of The State of Penang) for

sofeear k09
 an order to dismiss the petition on
the ground that the Federal Court
has no jurisdiction in the matter.

-Held: Article 128(1)(a) of the

Federal Constitution gives the
Federal Court exclusive
jurisdiction to determine any
question whether a law made by
Parliament or the Legislature of a
state is invalid (the Legislature of
a state has no power to make
laws).
-Thus, the State enactment and
the order made thereunder were
inconsistent with the Federal
legislation and were therefore
invalid and the Federal Court
has jurisdiction to make an
order declaring so.
Features of the Mamat bin * the state
Federal Constitution Daud & Ors v -The petitioners in this case legislation
Government of (Mamat bin Daud & Ors) were each which
Malaysia charged under section 298A of the concerns all
Penal Code for allegedly conducting matters
related to the
an act that was likely to cause
Islamic
prejudice and disharmony among religion and
Muslims. -They were said to have the religious
acted as unauthorized Imam, courts.
Khatib, and Bilal in a Friday prayer
on May 13, 1955, at Kampung
Kenaga, Wakaf Tapai in the district of
Kuala Terengganu

-Held:
[APPEAL ACCEPTED]
Section 298A, Penal Code was held to
be a trespass on the State List because
it was about Islamic Crimes which are
in the state jurisdiction.

sofeear k09
 The Gov of State of -The Gov of Kelantan
Kelantan v The Gov challenged the impending
of Federation of Malaysia Day Agreement and
Malaya and Tunku the Malaysia Act.
Abdul Rahman -They argued that the
Putera Al-Haj proposed changes required
the consent of each State,
including Kelantan, which
has not been obtained
-The Ruler of Kelantan
should be a party in the
Malaysian Agreement but he
was not.
-There is a constitutional
convention that the Rulers of
states should be consulted
before modifications to the
Merdeka Constitution are
legislated.
Held:
[Appeal Dismissed]
-These constitutional
conventions are not laws and
not enforceable in a court of
law
-Under the amendment
procedure Art.159, the Fed
Gov was not required to
obtain the consent of each
state.
- Article 2 assured that the
consent affected state on
territorial readjustments is not
needed and the state can not
have a say in the amendment
of FedCon

sofeear k09
 . Dewan Undangan - The respondents (Nordin Bin Article XXXIA Part
Negeri Kelantan & Salleh & Anor) were elected 1 of the Kelantan
Anor v Nordin Salleh members of the Kelantan State Constitution states
& Anor [1992] 2 CLJ Legislative Assembly (DUN) at that “If any member
1125 a general election of the Legislative
-However, according to Assembly who is a
Article XXXIA of the member of a
Kelantan Constitution, the political party
State Legislative Assembly resigns or is
of Kelantan passed a expelled from, or
resolution that the first and for
second respondents, within any reason
that time, had resigned from whatsoever ceases
the political party for which to be a member of
they stood and were elected such political party,
in the elections, had ceased he shall cease to be
to be members of the a member of the
legislative assembly and Legislative and his
their seats were declared seat shall become
vacant. vacant”. Kiranya,
- A by-election (an election the respondents
conducted if a vacancy arises tukar political party,
in the seat) was held in the which caused their
constituencies concerned, seats in the
whereby the first and second Legislative
respondents stood once more Assembly to be
in the election, but they were vacant by virtue of
defeated. Article XXXIA Part
-Subsequently, the 1.
respondents brought an
action in the High Court
seeking a declaration that art
XXXIA of the Kelantan
Constitution was invalid,

sofeear k09
 null, and void as it
contravened art 10(1)(c) of
the Federal Constitution,
guaranteeing the
fundamental right of
freedom of association.
-Held: The Supreme Court
ruled that the provision in
the Kelantan Constitution is
inconsistent with Article
10(1)(c) of the Federal
Constitution, due to the fact
that the provision itself is
restricting the respondents’
rights to freedom of
association
-It was further contended that
it is within the Parliament’s
jurisdiction to impose any
kinds of restrictions to the
rights of associations,
pursuant to Article 10(4), in
matters such as security of the
federation, public order, or
morality.
- Therefore, the State
Legislative Assembly had no
power to restrict the
respondents’ rights, and Article
XXXIA of Part 1 of the State
Constitution of Kelantan is void
or invalid ab initio (invalid
from the start).

sofeear k09
 Muhamad Juzaili -The appellants in this case
Mohd Khamis & (three Muslim men with
Ors v State Gender Identity Disorder)
Government of sought a declaration that
Negeri Sembilan Section 66 of the Syariah
& Ors Criminal Enactment of 1992
was unconstitutional. The
High Court of Seremban
dismissed the application
and appellants appealed.
-COA held that s 66 is
invalid as being
unconstitutional:
inconsistent with arts. 5(1),
8(1), 8(2), 9(2) & 10(1)(a) of
FC.
-The Federal Court however
overturned COA’s decision,
saying that COA had no
jurisdiction to declare the
law unconstitutional.
-The appeal was dismissed
because no leave was
granted by the Court under
Article 4(4)

Islam as the Che Omar B. Che -The appellant who is a [Appeal

Religion of the Soh v PP Muslim was charged with Dismissed] |
Federation drugs and firearm trafficking
[Article 3] -He challenged the death *Although Islam
penalty under the Fire Arms is the religion
(Increased Penalties) Act on Federation, it is
the grounds that it is not the basic law
uninslamic of the land &
-Appellant made an appeal Article 3 imposes
to show that the mandatory no limit for the
death sentence for the Parliament to
offences under the Act is legislate.
against injuctions of Islam
and is therefore *sustain the
unconstitutional and void. submission means
-He claims that Article 3(1) saying the
of Federal Constitution appellant’s claim
assures that Islam is the is right
religion of the Federation so
Islamic Law should be
applied to Muslims.
-It was held that the term
‘Islam’ or ‘Islamic Religion’
in Article 3 of the Federal

sofeear k09
 Constitution in the context
means only things related to
rituals and ceremonies.
-The provision [Article 3
(1)] does not mean that
Islam is an Islamic state
because Islamic Laws only
apply to Muslims in matters
of personal law.
-The Constitution further
distinguishes difference in
public law and public law,
thus drug trafficking is
clearly an offence under the
Federal List.
-Therefore, not much
reliance can be put on the
wordings of Article 3 to
sustain the submission* that
punishment of death for the
offence of drug trafficking or
any other offence will be
void & unconstitutional.

Hajah -The appellant initially [Appeal

Halimatussadiah v brought an action to the Dismissed]
Public Service High Court to challenge the
Commission validity of her dismissal by
Malaysia the PSC.
-She sought for a declaration
that paragraph 221 of
Service Circular No. 2
(1965) which prohibited her
from wearing her ‘purdah’ is
null and void.
-HC dismissed her
submission and she
proceeded to appeal to the
Federal Court but her
appeals were unsuccesful.
-It was held that although
Article 11 (1) guarantees the
right to profess and practice
religion, that right is not
absolute.
-In Article (5), it provides
that this article does not
authorize any act contrary to
any general law relating to

sofeear k09
 public order, public health &
morality.

Meor -Appellants wore turban as a [Appeal

Atiqulrahman bin part of their school uniform Dismissed]
Ishak & Ors v and was already repeatedly
Fatimah Sihi & advised not to do so.
Ors -They were instructed to
comply to the School
Regulations 1997 but they
refused and led them to be
expelled.
-Unsatisfied, they went to
court for a legal action on
the grounds that
their right under Article 11
(1) was denied.
-The Court held that the
School Regulations 1997 so
far only prohibits the
students from wearing the
turban as a part of school
uniform during school hours
only.
-Therefore their rights were
not denied and the School
Regulations 1997 did not
contravene with any
provision of the FedCon ,
thus it is not
unconstitutional.

Fundamental Tan Teck Seng v -The Appellant is a senior [Appeal

Liberties [right to life Suruhanjaya assistant in a primary school
& liberty // Article 5 Perkhidmatan and he was charged with two
(1)] Pendidikan counts of criminal breach of
trust and was later
convicted.
-Pursuant to that the Johor
Education Department wrote
to the Education Service
Commission, the
disciplinary authority for a
disciplinary action to be
taken.
-Some time later, the
appellant was dismissed
from service (laid off from
work).
Accepted]
-The expression
of ‘life’ appearing
in Article 5 (1) of
the Federal
Constitution does
not refer to mere
existence.
-It is supposed to
incorporate all
those facets that
are an integral
part of life itself
and those matters
which go to form

sofeear k09
 -The appellant sought for a the quality of life
declaration that his dismissal (fruitful life);
was null and void and dignity,
argued that inter alia, the employment,
dismissal was harsh, unfair clean unpolluted
and unjust. environment.
-It was held that his -In this case, the
dismissal of service was right to life
wrongful and encompasses the
unconstitutional since he right to continue
was deprived of gainful in public service,
employment without a fair unless the
hearing. removal is for a
good cause and
must be done in a
fair procedure.

Hong Leong -The defendant had [Appeal

Equipment Sdn dismissed the plaintiff Accepted]
Bhd v Liew from his
Fook Chuan & employment and Court
Anor declared it was null and
void
-Since the law is that
employment is a
fundamental right based on
Article 5(1) of FedCon,
Court must ensure the
plaintiff gets his job back
together
with previous
salaries owed .

Fundamental Sukma -Appellant was charged [Appeal Dismissed

Liberties [right to // Habeas Corpus
Darmawan v with the offence of gross
personal liberty // was not granted]
Ketua indecency under section
habeas corpus // Pengarah 377D of Penal Code in
article 5 (2)] -The expressions
Penjara the Sessions Court.
‘unlawfully
Malaysia & -He pleaded guilty and
detained’ and
Anor was sentenced to six
‘detention’
months imprisonment.
mentioned in
-He then applied a writ of
Article 5 (2) does
habeas corpus.
not apply to cases
-He contended that the of a person held
SC does not have the in a prison in
jurisdiction to try him on execution of a
the charge of ‘liwat’. sentence passed
-He stands that because by a court of
he is a Muslim and the competent
offence of ‘liwat’ is

sofeear k09
 under the Syariah jurisdiction.
Criminal Offences
(Federal Territories) Act,
therefore only the
Syariah Court is right to
try and charge him.
-However, it was held that
‘where an offender
commits an offence
triable by either the civil
or Syariah court, he may
be prosecuted in either of
the courts.’

Ooi Ah Phua v -Ooi was under arrest [Appeal Dismissed

Officer in because he was suspected
Charge, of having something to do
Criminal with a robbery.
Investigation, -He was arrested on the
Kedah 26th of December and
was rightfully produced
before a magistrate who
then approved for Ooi to
be under police custody
for a week, (28th
December-3rd January).
-On 5th January, Ooi’s
father filed for a writ of
Habeas Corpus, claiming
that because Ooi was
denied his right of having
a counsel, his detention is
then unlawful,
unconstitutional and void.
-It was held that Ooi’s
detention was definitely
lawful and a Habeas
Corpus cannot be issued.
-This is because Ooi was
already detained on
reasonable suspicion of
his involvement in an
armed robbery.
-By the time he filed for
his application for the
Habeas Corpus, he was
already (lawfully)
detained by the order of a
// Habeas Corpus
was not granted]
*This case can
also be used as an
authority for
explaining Article
5(3). Refer the
explanation
farther down in
the table below.
*when a person is
already sentenced
to imprisonment
by the court on a
criminal charge, a
habeas corpus
cannot be issued
to release the
person because he
wasn’t even
illegally detained
in the first place.
Habeas corpus
cannot be issued
to challenge the
legality or validity
of a trial.

sofeear k09
 magistrate,

Yit Hon Kit v -Appellant was arrested [Appeal Accepted //

habeas corpus was
Minister of on the 26th December
granted]
Home Affairs, 1985 but was only
Malaysia & informed of his grounds
Anor of arrest 21st of February
in the following year.

(incomplete)

Fundamental Chong Kim -The applicant had been [Appeal

Liberties [right to Loy v arrested by the police as Dismissed]
personal liberty // Timbalan he was involved in drug
rights to be informed Menteri Hal trafficking. **The applicant
on grounds of arrest must have known
Ehwal Dalam -There were a number of
// article 5 (3)] that the activities
Negeri arguments brought by the alleged against
applicant, one of them him were drug
included that the affidavit trafficking
of the arresting officer activities.
showed a violation of the
applicant’s right that he -Strict legal
should be informed, as terminology need
soon as may be of the not to be used, but
grounds of his arrest. enough must be
-He argued that it was not made known to
enough for the officer to the arrestee.
inform the applicant that
he was involved in
activities involving drugs;
it was essential to include
the term ‘trafficking in
drugs’.
-It was held that all that an
arrested person is entitled
to demand for is to be
informed, at the earliest
possible moment, not in
detail and not necessarily
in strict legal terminology,
but only in general terms,
by virtue of what power
he is being arrested and of
the grounds of his arrest.
-The arresting officer
should have gone further
and added that the
activities involving drugs

sofeear k09
 were drug trafficking
activities. However, this
did not invalidate the
arrest nor his detention.

Fundamental Abdul Rahman -According to the [Application

Liberties [right to v Tan Jo Koh respondent he met the Dismissed]
personal liberty // appellant in the course of
rights to be informed his rounds at a coffee Section 27 (1) of
on grounds of arrest shop. the Criminal
// article 5 (3)] -From the appellant's Procedural Code
behaviour the respondent states that any
suspected the appellant of private person
carrying a concealed may arrest any
weapon upon his person person in his view
and the respondent asked commits non
the appellant whether he bailable and
carried any. seizable offence
-On the appellant denying and person
proclaimed under
possession of any weapon
Section 44 shall
the respondent invited the
without delay
appellant to go to the
brought to the
police station to be
nearest police
searched but refused;
station. Therefore,
which led to his arrest.
arresting the
-He was searched in the appellant w/o a
presence of two other warrant by a
officers who witnessed the qualified
recovery of a knife in the constable was
fold of his sarong. reasonable.
-It was held that the
finding of the knife at the
police station was
conclusive evidence that
at the time he was arrested
at the coffee shop, he was
already in possession of
the knife (which is a
seizable offence).

Fundamental Ooi Ah Phua v -Ooi was under arrest [Appeal

Liberties [right to Officer in because he was suspected Dismissed]
personal liberty // Charge of of having something to do
rights to be consulted Criminal with a robbery.
& defended by a Investigation
counsel // article 5 -He was arrested on the
26th of December and

sofeear k09
 (3)] was rightfully produced
before a magistrate who
then approved for Ooi to
be under police custody
for a week, (28th
December-3rd January).
-On 5th January, Ooi’s
father filed for a writ of
Habeas Corpus, claiming
that because Ooi was
denied his right of having
a counsel, his detention is
then unlawful,
unconstitutional and void.
-He contended that on
30th December itself (the
day a counsel was
retained for the appellant),
the appellant (Ooi) had a
right to consult him.
-Ooi was only given the
chance to meet his
counsel 10 days after his
arrest.
-It was held that a delay of
10 days between arrest
and access to counsel was
not unconstitutional.
-the right of an arrested
person to consult his
lawyer begins from the
moment of arrest but
cannot be exercised
immediately.
-A balance had to be
struck between the right
of the arrested person and
the duty of the police to
protect the public from
wrongdoers.

Fundamental PP v -An offence is punishable [Found Guilty

Liberties [protection Mohammed by death or life but is sentenced
against retrospective Ismail imprisonment, then there accordingly to the
criminal laws and is amendment to the law law during when
repeated trials // -The amendment he committed the
Article 7(1) // offence]
was only having the death
retrospective criminal
penalty punishment
laws]

sofeear k09
 -The amendment was
enacted before the
sentencing, but because
he
committed the offence
first, before
the amendment, therefore
the new law is not
applicable to the accused
person.

Fundamental -There were two trials for [Appeal Dismissed

Sau Soo Kim v
Liberties [protection the appellant. // not double
PP jeopardy]
against retrospective -For the first trial in July
criminal laws & 1972, the appellant and
repeated trials // one Tan Soo Hor (tried *TSH- Tan Soo
Article 7 (2) // together) was charged Hor
repeated trials] under Sect 3 of the
Firearms (Increased **The 3 charges
(b) quashing of Penalties) Act 1971. & sentences;
earlier trial -The first trial ruled that
the appellant was (i) under Sect 3
acquitted but TSH was Firearms (IP) Act
convicted. 1971 --- 10 years
-TSH appealed against his of imprisonment.
conviction to the FC.
-With regards to TSH, the (ii) Sect. 307,
FC quashed his conviction Penal Code --- 4
and held that the trial in years
July was a nullity (null).
-In a second trial, (iii) Sect. 3(1),
appellant was charged Arms Act 1960 ---
again in September 1974 4 years
under Sect. 307 of the
Penal Code & Sect. 3(1) --he appealed
of the Arms Act 1960. because he
-Appellant pleaded guilty contended he
to the charges and was shouldn’t be
sentenced**. sentenced for the
-The appellant appealed, (i) charge.
arguing that because he
was acquitted in the first ***the appellant’s
(July 1972) trial, he could plea of guilt was
not be subsequently accepted because
charged in this second he (his counsel)
(September 1974) trial. did not raise the
-It was held that because plea of autrefois
the first trial was a nullity acquitt (previous
there was in fact no trial, acquittal).
thus the appellant could

sofeear k09
 not be said to be in double
jeopardy.

(c) Different Offence Jamali Adnan *couldn’t find

v PP the right words
that is
understandable
by all, please
read the case on
your own

(d) disciplinary Mohammed -Yusoff samadi is a school [Appeal

proceedings Yusoff Samadi teacher and he was Dismissed // not
v AG acquitted of his first case double jeopardy]
(with 5 charges; 4 victims)
due to outraging the
modesty of his student and
then
after that the public
service commision tried
him again under the
disciplinary proceedings,
but the proceeding was
dismissed.
-It was held that the two
proceedings he went
through was valid because
the second proceeding was
a disciplinary proceeding,
not a sentence by Court
(again).

(f) preventive PP v Musa *couldn’t find

detention the right words
that is
understandable
by all, please
read the case on
your own

Yeap Hock *couldn’t find

Seng @ Ah the right words
Seng v Minister that is
understandable
by all, please
read the case on
your own

(g) Technical Errors Re Datuk *couldn’t find

James Wong the right words
that is

sofeear k09
 Kim Min understandable
by all, please
read the case on
your own

Fundamental Noorfadilla -The Plaintiff interviewed [Appeal

Liberties [equality Ahmad Saikin with the education officers Accepted]
before the law // v Cahyed of Hulu Langat District to
Article 8 (2) // gender Basirun & Ors become an untrained *It is
equality] teacher. discriminating
-During the interview, the since there was no
Plaintiff was asked reasonable reason
questions pertaining to her on why the
general knowledge, appellant should
personal details, problem be dismissed from
solving skills and her service just
residential address. because she was
pregnant.
-She was not asked about
her pregnancy status.
-The Plaintiff was
accepted for the
position and presented
herself at an
instructional meeting as
instructed.
- At the meeting, she was
told to report
for duty
immediately.
-Subsequently, an
education officer asked
whether
anyone at the
meeting was
pregnant.
- Once the Plaintiff
admitted that she was
pregnant, her placement
memorandum was
withdrawn.
-the legal question in
Noorfadilla’s case
aroused when the
Malaysian
Government
revoked and
withdrew her
appointment as a Guru
Sandaran because she
was pregnant

sofeear k09
 -The High Court held
the refusal to
employ a woman on the
grounds of pregnancy
alone is a form of gender
discrimination and
unconstitutional under
Article 8 of the FedCon.
-An appeal by the
Government against this
decision was subsequently
withdrawn and the
matter was laid to rest

Fundamental Beatrice -The applicant was a flight [Appeal

Liberties [equality Fernandez v stewardess Dismissed]
before the law // Sistem who served MAS for 11
Article 8 (2) // gender Pener- years. It was not
equality] bangan -the T&Cs for her discriminating
Malaysia service were governed since there was a
by a collective
collective agreement agreement for all
between the MAS employees.
Employees Union and
MAS.
-One of the clauses of the
collective
agreement required an air
stewardess to do ground
work if she became
pregnant or face
termination.
-Applicant became
pregnant but refused to
adhere to the agreement,
MAS then terminated her
services.
-Article 8 of the
FedCon did not
apply in contractual
agreement in the private
sector.
-Discrimination for
barring a pregnant
stewardess to work is
allowed.
-The Training
Agreement, deeming the
female employee who

sofeear k09
 becomes pregnant during
the training period to have
committed a
repudiatory breach of
the Training
Agreement is valid and
enforceable..

Fundamental Kung Aik v PP -There was an order of [Appeal

Liberties [Article 9 banishment against the Accepted]
(1) // protection from applicant.
banishment] Courts overturned
-Applicant (Kung Aik) the government’s
applied to have the decision to banish
banishment order to be
Kung Aik.
withdrawn and put aside.
-He argued that he was
born in Kedah and his
mother was also rightfully
acquired a certificate of
citizenship issued under
Article 16 of the
Federation.
-It was held because the
applicant was indeed a
citizen operational by law,
therefore his rights are
assured under Article 9 (1)
where he has the
protection from
banishment.
-The initial order of
banishment made against
him is put aside.

Fundamental Government of -The government appealed -In this appeal

Liberties [Article 9 Malaysia & Ors to the Court because they by the gov, it
(2) // limitation to v Loh Wai wanted clarification on a was also
freedom of Kong few comments that were clarified that
movement] made in the previous Art 5 (2), liberty
ruling. of a person and
-Loh was a permanent his body doesn’t
resident in Australia. grant him the
-He returned to Malaysia fundamental
in April 1975 and was rights to leave
charged with a criminal the country.
offence in the following
year.
-Loh had sued the -The comment
government for refusing to in particular
issue him a passport was about the
rights to travel

sofeear k09
 claiming that he was where the judge
involved in a criminal case said refusing to
and that the issuance of a issue a passport
passport was at the was an
discretion of the king. infringement to
-Loh argued that the right the right of
to travel abroad is a personal liberty
fundamental liberty because that
protected by the phrase should
Constitution. include a
-It was rejected and it was person’s right to
held that Art 9 (2) is leave the
subject to punishments of country.
offenders
-In this appeal, it was
also mentioned that Art
5(2), liberty of a person
and his body doesn't confer
fundamental rights to leave
the
country

[Found Guilty]
Fundamental PP v Adam Adli -Adli was charged under
Liberties [Article 10 section 4 (1) (b) of the
// freedom of speech, Sedition Act.
assembly and
association] -His remarks were
considered to be
intended to incite the
public to topple the
government through street
protest
-The forum was held
shortly after BN
won the general
election
-Speech was
considered to be harmful
to public peace and
portrayed government as
cruel
-As an educated person, he
shouldn't have used
unlawful methods to incite
the public to overthrow the
government
-He was guilty for the
offence charged

Fundamental PP v Ooi Kee -Accused was [Found Guilty]

sofeear k09
 Liberties [ freedom of Saik charged with an offence
speech, assembly and under Sedition Act 1948,
association // Article where the seditious words
10 (1) (a) // freedom were alleged to be uttered
of speech and by the first accused at a
expression] dinner held by DAP.
-It was held that speeches
went beyond the limit of
freedom of
expression.
-It accused the gov of
gross partiality in favour
of one group & the
speech was
apt to promote ill
feelings and hostility
among different
races and touch on the
special rights of Malays

Fundamental PP v -The rationale for enacting [Found Guilty]

Liberties [ freedom of Yuneswaran the Peaceful Assembly Act
speech, assembly and Ramaraj is to facilitate the exercise
association // Article of the right under Article 10
10 (1) (b) // freedom (1) (b).
of assembly] -PAA recognises the right
to organise an assembly or
participate in an
assembly peaceably w/o
arms
-Except that, such
right is not extended to
non-citizen, held at a
prohibited place and
involves street protests

Fundamental Halimatussaad -Court approved the [Appeal

Liberties [freedom of iah v Public dismissal of a civil Dismissed]
religion // Article 11 Service servant
// Right to Practice] Commission, -wearing purdah on the
Malaysia & ground that
Anor Art.11(1) of the Const. is
intended to protect
absolutely the religious
beliefs of the ppl
-However, in
exercising religious
practises, Article 11(5) of
the Const.

sofeear k09
 Forbids any act
which may lead to public
disorder or which may
affect public health or
public morality
-Wearing purdah is only
a non-mandatory
practice of Islam, it does
therefore not violate any
rights.

Fundamental Merdeka -the Gov rejected the [Appeal

Liberties [freedom of University v establishment of Chinese Dismissed]
religion // Article 11 Government of university known as
// Right to Practice] Malaysia Merdeka University on the
ground that the university
intends to promote
Chinese language as its
medium of instructions
-YDPA at the time
rejected the petition on
the grounds that the
establishment of the
university
contravened the
National Education
Policy.
-Article 12 must be read
together with Article 152.
Thus, the formation of this
university is rejected on the
grounds that
for official purposes,
Bahasa Melayu must be
used as it is the Federal
Language

Teoh Eng Huat -Susie Teoh, the **by the time

v The Khadi of applicant’s daughter was the case was
Pasir Mas, 17 years and 8 months heard in the
Kelantan & when she converted to Supreme Court
Anor Islam. in 1990, Susie
-The applicant could not Teoh had
locate her and brought the already reached
respondent to Court. the age of
-He sought for a majority.
declaration that it is his
right as a father & ***current
guardian to the infant to ruling on the
remark is made

sofeear k09
 decide her religion and in Indira Gandhi
upbringing (he is a
Buddhist).
-HC ruled that the infant
has a right to choose her
own religion if it was done
in her own free will.
-Supreme Court later
overruled the decision of
the HC and held that “no
infant shall have the right
to receive instruction
relating to any other
religion other than (her)
own without permission
of the parent or guardian.
-However, SC did not
proceed with the initial
declaration sought by the
applicant as these were
“only of academic
interest”***

sofeear k09