Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Equality (article 8)

Legal area

Court

15 Dec 2023

LAI HEN BENG Jabatan Peguam Negara

Citation

06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

RJ
Case number

06(RJ)-3-04/2023(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Section 498 discriminates solely on the ground of gender contrary to Article 8(2); respondent failed to show any express constitutional authorization for such discrimination; section 498 is an existing pre-Merdeka law and cannot be judicially amended without altering its character, therefore it must be judicially repealed under Article 162 and the Court’s declaration is given prospective effect and remitted to the High Court to give effect.
5 Oct 2022

Samat Bin Yamin

Citation

07-8-06/2022(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

B
Case number

07-8-06/2022(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Section 13(2) of SOSMA is constitutionally valid: the gender/age/infirmity classification is an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to SOSMA's objective of preventing threats to public order and is proportionate; sections 26A and 26D ATIPSOM properly constitute security offences within SOSMA; Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear the bail application; therefore the applicant's Notice of Motion for bail was dismissed.
26 Oct 2021

1. ) ENTIRAN A/L DURASAMY [NO KP: 930826085719] 2. ) GANESAN A/L DURASAMY [NO K/P: 901106085363] 3. ) VELMURUGAN A/L PANIRESILVAM [NO K/P: 830525087165] 4. ) GANESAN A/L KUPPUSAMY [NO K/P: 700217085293] 5. ) VINODH A/L SIVAKUMAR [NO KP: 920

Citation

AA-44-19-04/2021, AA-44-20-04/2021, AA-44-21-04/2021, AA-44-22-04/2021, AA-44-28-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-44-19-04/2021, AA-44-20-04/2021, AA-44-21-04/2021, AA-44-22-04/2021, AA-44-28-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 13 SOSMA remains valid under Article 149 but must be read consistently with the equality guarantee in Article 8; the Court interprets the gendered term in Section 13(2)(b) so men are entitled to be considered for bail on a case-by-case basis; prior bail decisions did not resolve the equality issue (jurisdictional omission) and changed circumstances permit rehearing; accordingly the Court granted bail to each applicant with conditions including RM30,000 bond and mandatory Electronic Monitoring Device and other restrictions.

Malaysia Case Law

LAI HEN BENG Jabatan Peguam Negara

Samat Bin Yamin

1. ) ENTIRAN A/L DURASAMY [NO KP: 930826085719] 2. ) GANESAN A/L DURASAMY [NO K/P: 901106085363] 3. ) VELMURUGAN A/L PANIRESILVAM [NO K/P: 830525087165] 4. ) GANESAN A/L KUPPUSAMY [NO K/P: 700217085293] 5. ) VINODH A/L SIVAKUMAR [NO KP: 920