IKI PUTRA BIN MUBARRAK 1.KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR 2.MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR

IKI PUTRA BIN MUBARRAK 1.KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR 2.MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR

The preclusion clause operates to restrict State legislatures from enacting laws on subjects that remain within Parliament's domain; civil Superior Courts retain supervisory jurisdiction which is derived from Article 121(1) and relevant federal statutes and rules (not Article 4(1)); inherent powers do not create jurisdiction; Article 121(1A) must be applied contextually and does not automatically oust civil jurisdiction in every case.

Citation
BKA-3-11/2019(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Parties
Petitioner: Iki Putra bin Mubarak; Respondent: Kerajaan Negeri Selangor; Respondent: Majlis Agama Islam Selangor
Court
W
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 February 2021
Case Number
BKA-3-11/2019(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Procedural Posture
Original Jurisdiction, Constitutional Challenge / Federal Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Prayer (1) of the amended petition granted.
Legal Topics
Supremacy of the Federal Constitution, Judicial Powers Under Article 121, Preclusion Clauses and Legislative Competence, Inherent Powers of Courts, Civil V Syariah Jurisdiction, Ouster of Jurisdiction
Source Language
Malay/English
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Islamic/syariah Law Federalism Supremacy of the Federal Constitution Judicial Powers Under Article 121 Preclusion Clauses and Legislative Competence +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iki Putra bin Mubarak

Petitioner

Kerajaan Negeri Selangor

Respondent

Majlis Agama Islam Selangor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Original Jurisdiction, Constitutional Challenge / Federal Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the preclusion clause restricts the State Legislature from enacting laws on subjects reserved to Parliament
  2. 2 Whether civil Superior Courts retain supervisory jurisdiction and the correct constitutional source for such jurisdiction (Article 121(1) versus Article 4(1))
  3. 3 Whether inherent powers of the courts can create new jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The preclusion clause operates to restrict State legislatures from enacting laws on subjects that remain within Parliament's domain; civil Superior Courts retain supervisory jurisdiction which is derived from Article 121(1) and relevant federal statutes and rules (not Article 4(1)); inherent powers do not create jurisdiction; Article 121(1A) must be applied contextually and does not automatically oust civil jurisdiction in every case.

Court Disposition

Prayer (1) of the amended petition granted.

Orders

  • Prayer (1) of the amended petition granted