{"id":5952,"date":"2025-11-16T08:14:03","date_gmt":"2025-11-16T00:14:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/?p=5952"},"modified":"2025-11-16T13:51:41","modified_gmt":"2025-11-16T05:51:41","slug":"constitutional-right-ballot-box-vs-sops-court-of-appeal-upholds-constitutional-right-to-vote","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/constitutional-right-ballot-box-vs-sops-court-of-appeal-upholds-constitutional-right-to-vote\/","title":{"rendered":"CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT- BALLOT BOX VS SOPS: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

1. Summary and Facts<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In Tamileswaaran A\/L Ravi Kumar v Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 2371, the appellant, a Malaysian citizen and registered voter, was prevented from voting in the Johor State Elections in March 2022 after testing positive for COVID-19. Acting under SOPs issued pursuant to the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988, the Election Commission barred COVID-positive individuals from entering polling centres. The appellant sought judicial review, claiming breach of his constitutional right to vote under Article 119 of the Federal Constitution and seeking, among others, damages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Legal Issues<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Whether the Election Commission\u2019s decision to bar the appellant was amenable to judicial review.
\u2022 Whether the SOPs and subsidiary legislation could lawfully restrict the appellant\u2019s right to vote.
\u2022 Whether the right to vote is a constitutional or statutory right.
\u2022 Whether constitutional damages may be awarded for breach of the right to vote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Court\u2019s Findings<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 The Court of Appeal held that the decision was reviewable, as it directly and adversely affected the appellant\u2019s constitutional right to vote.
\u2022 SOPs and regulations are subsidiary legislation and cannot override Article 119 FC. Only an Act of Parliament may impose lawful restrictions. The Election Commission\u2019s reliance on SOPs to bar voting was unconstitutional.
\u2022 The Court reaffirmed that the right to vote is a constitutional right, not a mere statutory entitlement, and is fundamental to Malaysia\u2019s democratic framework.
\u2022 While there was a breach, the Court declined to award damages. The Election Commission acted in good faith, guided by public health concerns during the pandemic, and without mala fides.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. Practical Implications<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This decision affirms several important legal principles governing the constitutional right of the election voter including:
\u2022 The SOP governs during MCO is subsidiary legislation, therefore cannot be concluded as federal law or act of parliament.
\u2022 The right of voting is constitutionally protected provided the requirements under article 119 of FC is fulfilled.
\u2022 The commission\u2019s denial appellant to vote is deemed amenable judicial review on order 53 rule 2(4) due to its adverse affected on the appellant\u2019s constitutional right.
\u2022 The court has discretionary power to grant monetary compensation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Tamileswaaran a\/l Ravi Kumar v Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 2371, the Court of Appeal held that the Election Commission acted unconstitutionally when it barred a COVID-positive voter from casting his ballot under SOPs issued during the Johor State Elections. The Court reaffirmed that the right to vote under Article 119 of the Federal Constitution is a fundamental constitutional right that cannot be curtailed by subsidiary legislation or administrative protocols. While acknowledging a breach, the Court declined to award damages as the Commission acted in good faith under extraordinary public health circumstances.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5954,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3581,18],"tags":[3437,3582,1705,3699,3036],"class_list":["post-5952","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-constitutional-law","category-updates","tag-citizenship","tag-constitutional-law","tag-family-law","tag-federal-constitution","tag-judicial-review"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5952"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5952"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5952\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5955,"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5952\/revisions\/5955"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5954"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5952"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5952"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5952"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}