MARIA CHIN ABDULLAH 1.KETUA PENGARAH IMIGRESEN 2.MENTERI DALAM NEGERI

MARIA CHIN ABDULLAH 1.KETUA PENGARAH IMIGRESEN 2.MENTERI DALAM NEGERI

Section 59A of the Immigration Act is inconsistent with Article 4(1) FC and void because it attempts to oust the constitutional power of judicial review; section 59 likewise violates the guarantees of 'law' under Art 5(1) by denying natural justice; s.3(2) does not empower the Director-General to impose a travel ban that infringes fundamental rights (Art 5/Art 10) and the blacklist enforcement in this case was unlawful; consequently the courts may review and set aside such executive acts and require justification and reasons.

Citation
01(f)-5-03/2019(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Parties
Appellant: Maria Chin Abdullah; 1st Respondent: Ketua Pengarah Imigresen; 2nd Respondent: Menteri Dalam Negeri
Court
f
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 January 2021
Case Number
01(f)-5-03/2019(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Federal Court (appellate Judgment)
Outcome
Sections 59A and 59 of the Immigration Act declared void; Director-General/Minister's travel blacklist and refusal to permit travel in this case held unlawful; appellant entitled to judicial review and remedies
Legal Topics
Ouster Clause, Judicial Review, Fundamental Liberties, Freedom of Movement, Freedom of Expression, Natural Justice, Separation of Powers, Constitutional Supremacy
Source Language
Malay/English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Ouster Clause Judicial Review Fundamental Liberties Freedom of Movement +4 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria Chin Abdullah

Appellant

Ketua Pengarah Imigresen

1st Respondent

Menteri Dalam Negeri

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Federal Court (appellate Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.3(2) Immigration Act empowers unfettered discretion to impose travel ban
  2. 2 Whether s.59 and s.59A Immigration Act are constitutional and valid
  3. 3 Whether right to travel abroad is a fundamental liberty under Art 5(1) FC

Ratio Decidendi

Section 59A of the Immigration Act is inconsistent with Article 4(1) FC and void because it attempts to oust the constitutional power of judicial review; section 59 likewise violates the guarantees of 'law' under Art 5(1) by denying natural justice; s.3(2) does not empower the Director-General to impose a travel ban that infringes fundamental rights (Art 5/Art 10) and the blacklist enforcement in this case was unlawful; consequently the courts may review and set aside such executive acts and require justification and reasons.

Court Disposition

Sections 59A and 59 of the Immigration Act declared void; Director-General/Minister's travel blacklist and refusal to permit travel in this case held unlawful; appellant entitled to judicial review and remedies

Orders

  • Section 59A of the Immigration Act 1959/63 declared void for inconsistency with Article 4(1) Federal Constitution
  • Section 59 of the Immigration Act 1959/63 declared void for failing to comply with 'law' under Article 5(1) and natural justice