Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Article 135(2) federal constitution

Legal area

Court

16 Feb 2026

1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 2. ) Ketua Polis Negara 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia Mohd Aiman Bin Balpaki

Citation

W-01(A)-335-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-335-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeals because the disciplinary process complied with Regulation 37 of the 1993 Regulations and Article 135(2) of the Federal Constitution provided the required constitutional safeguard; there is no general duty under the Regulations or Constitution to give reasons for disciplinary decisions affecting livelihood under Article 5(1); the High Court erred in quashing the Disciplinary Board's decisions solely for lack of reasons; therefore the High Court orders were set aside and costs awarded.
16 Feb 2026

1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 2. ) Ketua Polis Negara 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia Mohamad Sufian Bin Abdul Halim

Citation

W-01(A)-336-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-336-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held the High Court erred: the 1993 Regulations (Reg 37 et seq.) were complied with, there is no statutory or constitutional duty to provide detailed reasons for disciplinary findings or punishment beyond the procedural opportunity to make written representations under Article 135(2), Article 5(1) does not create a freestanding right to continue in public service, and absent a fundamental procedural defect the disciplinary decisions were not amenable to being quashed; accordingly the appeals were allowed and High Court orders set aside.
20 Dec 2022

AIDIL BIN ABAS 1. ) XXXX 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 3. ) Ketua Polis Negara 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

BA-25-34-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-34-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard via written representation, charges contained adequate particulars under Regulation 37(2)(a), delay in initiating proceedings was not procedurally unfair absent a statutory time limit, Pol.4 entries did not by themselves displace respondent records, and dismissal was within disciplinary authority's discretion and not irrational; application dismissed.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 2. ) Ketua Polis Negara 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia Mohd Aiman Bin Balpaki

1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 2. ) Ketua Polis Negara 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia Mohamad Sufian Bin Abdul Halim

AIDIL BIN ABAS 1. ) XXXX 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 3. ) Ketua Polis Negara 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia