Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Article 149 federal constitution

Legal area

Court

20 Feb 2025

MURUGAYA A/L CHELLACHAMY 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGERI SELANGOR 4. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-25-253-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-253-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the respondents met the three legal prerequisites established in Selva Vinayagam; there was adequate evidence that the Deputy Minister applied his mind and was satisfied detention was necessary for public order; procedural requirements (arrest information, investigation and inquiry timelines) were complied with or reasonably explained under the practical urgency standard; non‑production of the witness was caused by the applicant's counsel declining to bear costs. Therefore the detention and Suspension of Detention Order were lawful and the Judicial Review dismissed.
31 Oct 2023

LINGESWARAN A/L RAJANDRAN

Citation

AA-44-25-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-44-25-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

High Court concluded respondents complied with statutory procedural requirements: evidence and consistent affidavits established the applicant acted with a substantial body of persons; signature/title irregularity was immaterial and did not prejudice applicant; Advisory Board notes lawfully withheld and no conflicting respondent affidavits necessitated disclosure; therefore detention was lawful and habeas corpus application dismissed.
7 Jul 2023

ALEXANDER A/L GANAPRAGASAM 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI,MALAYSIA 2. ) PENGUASA KANAN PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAH BATU GAJAH,PERAK 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA

Citation

BA-44-294-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-294-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the detention order was lawfully made: the grounds and Deputy Minister's affidavit sufficiently established that the applicant acted as part of a substantial body of persons; the explanations for investigative and inquiry delays were reasonable and did not prejudice the applicant; no statutory time limit required immediate issuance by the Minister; and the Act does not mandate furnishing a copy of the cautioned statement, therefore the habeas corpus application was dismissed.
24 Nov 2022

ANIDA EFENDI 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) Ketua Polis Negara 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGERI JOHOR

Citation

BA-25-71-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-71-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The detention order was lawfully susceptible to judicial review because the grounds failed to allege that the applicant was part of a 'substantial body of persons' as required by Article 149 and the DDSPMA preamble; that defect was material and meritorious, entitling the applicant to relief, while the other challenges (definition conflict, alleged delay, specification of area) were dismissed on merits.
14 Nov 2022

Mohd Fuad bin Yahya 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) Pengarah Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak Machang Kelantan 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA

Citation

BA-44-205-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-205-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and gathered witness statements with convenient speed given the circumstances and scope of the inquiry, and the Deputy Minister's grounds and statement of facts sufficiently evidenced the applicant's involvement with a substantial body of persons as defined in Selva Vinayagam; therefore the detention complied with statutory and constitutional preconditions and the habeas corpus application was dismissed.
18 Oct 2022

AA-44-34-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

AA-44-34-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-44-34-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the 'substantial body of persons' element, being central to the object of the DDSPMA, must be read into s.3 so that arrest and each incremental detention (s.3(1), s.3(2)(a), s.3(2)(b)) are lawful only if officers possess and act on a belief that the suspect is associated with trafficking by a substantial body of persons; absence of that element at arrest and early detentions rendered the applicant's detention unlawful and entitled him to immediate release by writ of habeas corpus.
18 Oct 2022

VEGNESH A/L RAMNAIDU

Citation

AA-44-34-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-44-34-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that the element that the suspect be associated with a 'substantial body of persons' (as reflected in the Act's object/preamble and Article 149) must be read into section 3 so that the arrest and each subsequent detention authorization (beyond 24 and 48 hours) are valid only if that element is present from the outset; absence of that element at arrest and during the initial detentions rendered the arrest and subsequent detentions unlawful and warranted issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
20 Sept 2022

YAP CHUNG CHONG 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS SELANGOR 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA

Citation

BA-25-69-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-69-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held the 37‑day interval was justified by COVID‑19 disruptions and officer commitments and constituted conduct with all convenient speed; the factual allegations describing courier activity and receipt of supplies supported inference of involvement with a substantial body satisfying the Act's preamble; and reporting to the Deputy OCPD in the OCPD's temporary absence was valid; accordingly the judicial review application was dismissed.
8 Apr 2022

TABIN BIN OYOH 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 3. ) PENGUASA KANAN, PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK SIMPANG RENGGAM, JOHOR

Citation

BA-44-384-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-384-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Detention was unlawful because the facts did not establish involvement of the applicant with a large organized group as required by Article 149 and the Act, and because there were unreasonable delays—24 days for submission of the complete investigation report and 11 days for the inquiry report—without credible explanations; these procedural breaches prejudiced the applicant and invalidated the detention, entitling release by writ of habeas corpus.
8 Apr 2022

RAJA A/L SINANTHAMBY 1. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) PENGARAH, PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK, BATU GAJAH, PERAK 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA

Citation

BA-44-354-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-44-354-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found the factual averments did not establish involvement with a large organised group and found unexplained, excessive delays by the investigating officer, the inquiring officer and the Deputy Minister in preparing and issuing required reports/orders; those procedural failures and delays rendered the detention order invalid and habeas corpus must issue, resulting in immediate release.