Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Article 149

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2026

MOHAMMAD FAEZ BIN ISHAK 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI 2. ) Ketua Polis W.p Kuala Lumpur 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

BA-25-118-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-118-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proving procedural irregularity; the respondents' affidavits specifically denied the alleged defects and established that the Respondent First considered investigation reports and was satisfied to issue the restriction order under section 6(3) LLPK; disclosure of reasons/factual particulars was not legally required for an order under s6(3), therefore the restriction order remained valid.
31 Jan 2023

ALAKESAN A/L SIVALINGAM

Citation

BA-44-270-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-270-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

High Court held that there was procedural non‑compliance: detention of the applicant in Teluk Intan police lockup for 44 days exceeded the 30‑day limit under s7 Prison Act 1995 as applied by Gazette P.U.(B)85/2006 and no ministerial authorization for extended use of that lock‑up under the DD Act was shown; consequently the detention was unlawful and a writ of habeas corpus was granted. All other challenged grounds lacked merit as non‑procedural or were not established.
26 May 2022

THIAGESH A/L SUNDERU 1. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA,MALAYSIA 2. ) MENTERI DALAM NEGERI

Citation

BA-44-89-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-89-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although most procedural and substantive challenges to arrest and detention under s3(1)/s3(2) were without merit, the detention exceeding 30 days in the Teluk Intan police lock-up was unlawful because the Respondent failed to prove Ministerial authorization under Prison Act s7 for that place to be used beyond the statutory limits; that non-compliance rendered the detention unlawful and justified the grant of a writ of habeas corpus and immediate release.
31 Mar 2022

NAGAHSWARAN A/L MUNIANDY 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) Pengarah Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak Machang Kelantan 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA

Citation

BA-44-316-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-316-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the detention order satisfied the Selva Vinayagam criteria linking the applicant to group trafficking; the explanations for the 28‑day and 7‑day report preparation periods were credible and reasonable within the statutory framework (s3(2) 60 days); there is no statutory time limit for issuing a s6(1) detention order so the 17‑day delay did not amount to procedural non‑compliance; consequently the habeas corpus application failed.
12 Jan 2022

SAANJEEV SINGH GILL A/L RANJIT SINGH 1. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. PENGUASA KANAN PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK SIMPANG RENGGAM, JOHOR 3. KETUA POLIS NEGARA

Citation

BA-44-232-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-232-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Detention was unlawful because the grounds of the detention order failed to establish the essential statutory requirement that the detainee was a member of a 'substantial body of persons' involved in trafficking as required by the Act and interpreted in Selva Vinayagam; that procedural defect was sufficient to invalidate the order even though other challenges lacked merit.
17 Mar 2021

1. LEE SHUH TAH 2. PANG SIN TENG 3. LOW JUN JIE 1. ASP ADDIE REMIE BIN JASMIN 2. MAJISTRET MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET JOHOR BAHRU 3. KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 4. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-44-31-03/2021; WA-44-32-03/2021; WA-44-33-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-44-31-03/2021; WA-44-32-03/2021; WA-44-33-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The applications were dismissed as academic because the applicants' initial remand had been extended by valid remand orders under section 4(2) of POCA such that the earlier detention ceased to be the operative cause of detention; precedent establishes that habeas corpus will not issue against prior or superseded detentions and POCA limits substantive judicial review to procedural non-compliance under Article 149, so no relief was warranted.
29 Dec 2020

TAN CHAI HOK 1. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. KETUA POLIS NEGARA 3. PENGARAH, PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK SIMPANG RENGGAM, JOHOR

Citation

BA-44-240-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-240-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The writ was allowed because there was an unjustified inordinate delay by the Investigation Officer in finalising and submitting the investigation report (an 8‑day unexplained delay after the last witness statement) which constituted procedural non‑compliance significant enough to undermine the statutory safeguards, rendering the detention illegal; other alleged irregularities either did not prejudice the applicant or were satisfied (Advisory Board hearings occurred and Form I was served; Minister had regard to association with a substantial body).
30 Dec 2019

SHAHID ALI (NO. PASSPORT: QH1801731) 1. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. PENGUASA PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK, BATU GAJAH, PERAK 3. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

PA-44-43-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-44-43-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the Act is intended to target a substantial body involved in syndicate activity and not to detain a single person; because the applicant was detained without trial under an Act meant for syndicates and Article 149 does not permit overriding Article 8, the detention violated Article 8 and was unlawful, so the habeas corpus application succeeded.