Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rule 137 review jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

22 Apr 2026

MOHD HELMI ANUAR BIN MOHD KASSIM PEGUAM PEMERHATI Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia (SUHAKAM) AMICUS CURIAE Collin Arvind Andrew

Citation

07-23-11/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

W
Case number

07-23-11/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Judgment: Judicial whipping as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code and federal penal statutes is unconstitutional insofar as it violates Article 5(1) and Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution and is inconsistent with Malaysia's commitment to the UDHR and customary international prohibitions on torture/CIDT; the Federal Court will exercise its Rule 137 inherent jurisdiction in this rare case to declare those provisions void prospectively and to prohibit execution or future imposition of judicial whipping under federal law.
22 Apr 2026

MOHD HELMI ANUAR BIN MOHD KASSIM PEGUAM PEMERHATI Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia (SUHAKAM) AMICUS CURIAE Collin Arvind Andrew

Citation

07-23-11/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

W
Case number

07-23-11/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Applicants met a limited r 137 threshold because the factual substratum (Zaidi's death) was unavailable at resentencing, but they failed to prove a clear constitutional transgression: no reliable medical causal link between whipping and death was shown, statutory safeguards and procedural limits render whipping not violative of Art 5 or Art 8, and the gender exemption does not breach Art 8(2); therefore all review applications dismissed.
31 Mar 2023

DATO' SRI MOHD NAJIB BIN HJ ABDUL RAZAK

Citation

05(RJ)-11-09/2022(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

RJ
Case number

05(RJ)-11-09/2022(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The review application is dismissed because Rule 137 cannot be used to re-open or re‑adjudicate the merits of earlier Federal Court decisions; the asserted grounds (fresh evidence, adjournment and counsel discharge, recusal, alleged quorum failure, and asserted lack of reasons) did not disclose the very exceptional circumstances required for review, the Federal Court panels exercised proper judicial discretion, there was no breach of natural justice, and the threshold for bias or relevant fresh evidence was not met.

Malaysia Case Law

MOHD HELMI ANUAR BIN MOHD KASSIM PEGUAM PEMERHATI Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia (SUHAKAM) AMICUS CURIAE Collin Arvind Andrew

MOHD HELMI ANUAR BIN MOHD KASSIM PEGUAM PEMERHATI Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia (SUHAKAM) AMICUS CURIAE Collin Arvind Andrew

DATO' SRI MOHD NAJIB BIN HJ ABDUL RAZAK