分類: Constitutional Law

FEDERAL COURT SAVES SECTION 233 CMA: ‘OFFENSIVE’ AND ‘ANNOY’ REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL

In The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] MLJU 384, the Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling that had struck out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The Court held that these terms, when read together with the requirement of intent to annoy, fall within the permissible restrictions on free speech under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. While the impugned words were upheld as constitutional, the respondent’s acquittal was maintained as her Facebook posts criticising immigration detention conditions did not demonstrate the required intent to annoy or harass.

HIGH COURT ORDERS TIKTOK VIDEO TAKEN DOWN: ADVICE ON SECRET CONVERSION OF MINORS VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

In Karnan a/l Rajanthiran & Ors v Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2025] 9 MLJ 14, the High Court granted a mandatory interim injunction ordering the immediate removal of a viral TikTok video advising how underaged non-Muslim children could be secretly converted to Islam without their parents’ knowledge. The Court held that the advice prima facie breached Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that a minor’s religion must be determined by their parent or guardian. Given the risk of irreparable harm to constitutional rights, the Court found the case “unusually strong and clear” and concluded that justice and the balance of convenience favoured the urgent removal of the video pending trial.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT- BALLOT BOX VS SOPS: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE

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.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – CITIZENSHIP – CITIZENSHIP DENIED: HIGH COURT REFUSES TO LEGALISE CHILD TRADING

In Ow Man Yaw & Ors v Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Anor [2024] 9 MLJ 77, the High Court dismissed an application for Malaysian citizenship brought by adoptive parents on behalf of a child obtained through an agent. The Court held that the child was not “abandoned” within the meaning of section 19B of the Federal Constitution but was instead the subject of a planned arrangement amounting to child trading. As such, the presumption of citizenship by operation of law could not be invoked. The Court further affirmed that applications under Article 15A rest solely with the Federal Government, beyond judicial intervention. The ruling underscores that the best interests of the child cannot override constitutional requirements or validate unlawful conduct.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – A PEACEFUL WIN: COURT STRIKES DOWN CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR NO NOTICE UNDER PAA

In Amir Hariri bin Abd Hadi v Public Prosecutor [2025] 4 MLJ 807, the Court of Appeal struck down Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 as unconstitutional. The provision, which criminalised organisers for failing to give 10 days’ prior notice of an assembly, was held to be a disproportionate restriction on the constitutional right to peaceful assembly under Article 10(1)(b). The Court emphasised that while notice requirements under Section 9(1) remain valid for regulatory purposes, criminal penalties for non-compliance imposed an unjustifiable burden on fundamental liberties. This landmark ruling strengthens constitutional protections for public assemblies in Malaysia.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS AND ANTI-SMUGGLING OF IMMIGRANTS – CONSTITUTIONAL CLASH: EXAMINING LEGISLATIVE OVERREACH IN EVIDENCE LAW – PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE

This update scrutinizes the constitutionality of Section 61A of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007, focusing on whether Parliament violated the separation of powers by defining prima facie evidence, and the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional integrity.