Constitutional, Administrative and Human Rights Law

The firm has been involved in significant constitutional, administrative and human rights cases and is regularly consulted and briefed in high profile disputes of complexity across the spectrum of these practice areas.

Notable cases include:

SIS Forum (Malaysia) v Jawatankuasa Fatwa Negeri Selangor [2025] 4 MLJ 625. Federal Court decision on the validity of a fatwa issued by the Jawatankuasa Fatwa Negeri Selangor, and the jurisdictional competence of the state religious authorities under the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Selangor) Enactment 2003.
Dahlia Dhaima Abdullah v Majlis Agama Islam Selangor & Another Appeal [2024] 5 CLJ 855. Federal Court decision on the jurisdiction of the syariah court in circumstances where a conversion was argued to be invalid in the first place, as opposed to renunciation cases of which the syariah court would have jurisdiction over.
Nik Elin Zurina Nik Abdul Rashid & Anor v Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan [2024] 3 CLJ 323. Federal Court decision on the constitutionality and validity of certain sections of the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code (I) [Enactment 14] Enactment 2019, which was found by a majority of 8-1 to be invalid for being in contravention of the Federal Constitution.
Haris Fathillah bin Mohamed Ibrahim & Ors v Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Hj Azam bin Baki & Ors [2023] 2 MLJ 296. Federal Court decision concerning the permissibility of criminal investigation bodies, including but not limited to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, to investigate into sitting judges of the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.
Majlis Agama Islam Selangor v Dahlia Dhaima Abdullah & Another Appeal [2023] 2 CLJ 513. Court of Appeal decision concerning the validity of the conversion of the respondent to Islam. The respondent’s appeal to the Federal Court can be found in Dahlia Dhaima Abdullah v Majlis Agama Islam Selangor & Another Appeal [2024] 5 CLJ 855.
Zulkifli Bin Ibrahim & Ors v The Penang State Legislative Assembly & Ors (Federal Court Civil Appeal Nos. 06(RS)-1-05/2022(P), 06(RS)-2-05/2022(P) & 06(RS)-3-05/2022(P) (unreported). Landmark decision of the Federal Court on the constitutionality of Penang’s anti-hopping law. The question before the apex court was whether Article 14A of the State Constitution of Penang is void for being inconsistent with Article 10(c) of the Federal Constitution. The court answered this in the negative.
Wong Ong Hua & Anor v PP & Ors [2023] 5 CLJ 133. High Court decision which struck down sections 4 and 20 of the Extradition Act 1992 and declared these provisions as void for being unconstitutional. The issues of law raised concerned, inter alia, the rights of a fugitive criminal to a fair hearing and the judicial power of the Sessions Court.
SIS Forum (Malaysia) v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor; Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (Intervener) [2022] 3 CLJ 339 (FC); This was a Federal Court decision concerning the constitutionality of section 66A of the Administrative of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 which gave the Syariah courts jurisdiction to hear and decide on judicial review. The Federal Court ruled that section 66A was unconstitutional as judicial review is exclusively a judicial power of the civil superior courts.
Khaliq Mehtab Mohd Ishaq & Anor v Dewan Undangan Negeri Pulau Pinang & Anor [2022] 6 CLJ 947; This High Court decision concerns the reference of the constitutional question of whether Article 14A(1), Constitution of the State of Penang (Amendment) Enactment 2012 was void for being against and/or inconsistent with Article 10(1)(c), Federal Constitution.
Charles Anthony R Santiago v Dato Sri Ismail Sabri Yaakob & Ors [2022] CLJU 2597. High Court decision concerning the exercise of power to dissolve Parliament under Article 55(2) of the Federal Constitution. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
Hisham Halim v Maya Ahmad Fuaad & Ors [2022] 1 LNS 608, 1 LNS 550, 1 LNS 1890; This case concerns 3 separate judicial reviews before the High Court. The applicant’s challenge is as against the appointment of the Chief Syariah Judge and challenge the Syariah Appeal Court’s power to punish for contempt.
Iki Putra Mubarak Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Anor [2021] 3 CLJ 465. Federal Court decision on the constitutionality and validity of section 28, Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995, which was found by a nine-judge panel to be invalid for being in contravention of the Federal Constitution.
Sundra Rajoo Nadarajah v Menteri Luar Negeri, Malaysia & Ors [2021] 6 CLJ 199; Federal Court decision on prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney-General.
Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Bukit Lenang Development Sdn Bhd [2019] 1 CLJ 42. Federal Court decision concerning the interpretation and construction of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 in light of the spirit and purpose of Article 13 of the Federal Constitution.
Gin Poh Holdings Sdn Bhd v The Government of The State of Penang & Ors [2018] 4 CLJ 1. Federal Court decision on the principles applicable to the interpretation of the legislative lists in the Federal Constitution.
Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat [2017] 3 MLJ 561. Federal Court decision concerning a controversial constitutional amendment that sought to restrict the jurisdiction of the High Court and judicial power to such matters as the Judiciary was vested with by written law. This was the first decision of the court that accepted that the amendment violated the basic structure of the Federal Constitution for it undermined the doctrine of separation of powers, and the independence of the Judiciary.
Karpal Singh Ram Singh v Public Prosecutor & Another Appeal [2016] 8 CLJ 15. Court of Appeal decision concerning the constitutionality and validity of the Sedition Act 1948.
ZI Publications Sdn Bhd & Anor v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor (Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor, intervener) [2016] 1 MLJ 153. Federal Court decision in respect of an Article 4(1) challenge on the power of the State Legislative Assemblies to enact laws restricting the freedom of expression in furtherance of the administration of Islam.
Shamala a/p Sathiyaseelan v Dr Jeyaganesh a/l C Mogarajah (also known as Muhammad Ridzwan bin Mogarajah) & Anor [2011] 2 MLJ 281. Federal Court decision on the entitlement of parties in contempt to move a court for relief.
Sulaiman bin Takrib v Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu (Kerajaan Malaysia, intervener) and other applications [2009] 6 MLJ 354. Federal Court decision in respect of two Article 4(1) challenges on the power of the States to legislate through fatwa councils, and the meaning of the phrase “precepts of Islam”. A related decision can be found at Abdul Kahar bin Ahmad v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor (Kerajaan Malaysia, intervener) & Anor [2008] 3 MLJ 617.
Subashini Rajasingam v Saravanan Thangathoray & Other Appeals [2008] 2 CLJ 1. Federal Court decision on the conflict of jurisdiction arising in marital and custody disputes between spouses, one of whom had subsequent to the marriage converted to Islam.
Latifah bte Mat Zin v Rosmawati bte Sharibun [2007] 5 MLJ 101. Federal Court decision on conflicts of jurisdiction between the Malaysian civil courts and syariah courts.
Lina Joy lwn. Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Yang Lain [2007] 3 CLJ 557. Federal Court decision on the renunciation of faith by Muslims.
Kamariah Ali & Anor v Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan & Anor [2004] 3 CLJ 409. Federal Court decision on the renunciation of faith by Muslims and the power of the syariah courts to commit for contempt.

Suruhanjaya Persaingan v Myteksi Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 3 MLJ 197. Court of Appeal decision in a judicial review application against the proposed decision of the Malaysian Competition Commission, affirming the High Court’s decision in MyTeksi Sdn Bhd & Ors v Suruhanjaya Persaingan Malaysia [2023] MLJU 2142.
Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya v Lim Keng Jit (suing in the capacity of an authorised member under s 9(c) of the Societies Act 1966 for Persatuan Penduduk Parkville Jalan PJU 3/32–3/37 Sunway Damansara, Petaling Jaya, Selangor) (unreported). Federal Court decision affirming the Court of Appeal’s decision in Lim Keng Jit v Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya [2023] 7 CLJ 745.
Berjaya Land Berhad & Anor v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, Federal Court Civil Appeal No. 01(f)-15-05/2023(B) (unreported). Federal Court decision on a judicial review against the Selangor State Government for its refusal to re-table its proposal to develop a sporting and equestrian facility in Sungai Tinggi, Selangor for the Selangor Turf Club before the National Physical Planning Council.
Lim Keng Jit v Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya [2023] 7 CLJ 745. Court of Appeal decision in a judicial review application against the decision of the local council which rejected an application by the a residents’ association to impose a rule that non-paying owners and residents, or non-residential members of the association would have to operate security boom gates by themselves.
MyTeksi Sdn Bhd & Ors v Suruhanjaya Persaingan Malaysia [2023] MLJU 2142. High Court decision which allowed Grab Malaysia’s application for judicial review and found that the decision by the Competition Commission was tainted with procedural impropriety and breach of natural justice.
Pertubuhan Pergerakan Tenaga Akademik Malaysia (GERAK) (Malaysian Academic Movement) & Ors v Menteri Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia & Anor [2022] 1 LNS 715; This High Court decision concerns the dismissal of a judicial review by the applicants seeking, amongst others, to quash the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of Universiti Malaysia Terengganu. Malik Imtiaz Sarwar was appointed to represent the said Vice-Chancellor.
Deloitte PLT v Securities Commission of Malaysia [2021] 1 LNS 995; High Court decision in a commercial judicial review against administrative action taken for breaches of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007.
Peguam Negara Malaysia v Nurul Izzah Anwar & Ors [2017] 5 CLJ 595. Court of Appeal decision concerning the locus standi and special right to appeal of the Attorney General in the public interest in judicial review proceedings.
Malaysian Trade Union Congress & 13 Ors v Menteri Tenaga, Air dan Komunikasi & Anor [2014] 3 MLJ 145. Federal Court decision on locus standi and the “adversely effected” test for judicial review.
Wong Kin Hoong & Anor (suing for themselves and on behalf all of the occupants of Kampung Bukit Koman, Raub, Pahang) v Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Alam Sekitar & Anor [2013] 4 MLJ 161. Federal Court decision on the test for extensions of time for commencing judicial review.
Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Ong See Teong & Anor [2010] 2 CLJ 1. Fededral Court decision involving the extent of the entitlement of licencees under the Electricity Supply Act 1990 to access private land.
Majlis Agama Islam Selangor v Bong Boon Chuen & Ors [2009] 6 MLJ 307. Federal Court decision on entitlement, and procedure, to intervene in judicial review proceedings.
QSR Brands Bhd v Suruhanjaya Sekuriti & Anor [2006] 2 CLJ 532. Court of Appeal decision in a commercial judicial review pertaining to a take-over exercise on locus standi in such proceedings and the pre-conditions to challenge.
Rekapacific v Securities Commission & Anor & Other Appeals [2005] 2 CLJ 108. Decision of the Court of Appeal in a commercial judicial review on the scope of discovery and the entitlement of cross-examination of deponents.

Norhayati bt Mohd Ariffin v Mohd Russaini bin Idrus & Anor [2023] 12 MLJ 445. High Court decision concerning a judicial review application seeking, amongst others, a declaration that the Special Task Force report (regarding the investigation of the alleged abduction of Amri Che’ Mat) does not fall within the definition of an ‘official secret’ under section 2, Official Secrets Act 1972.
Harris bin Mohd Salleh v Chief Secretary, Government of Malaysia & 2 Ors [2023] 4 CLJ 744. High Court decision concerning the duty of the Government to declassify an official secret pursuant to section 2C of the Official Secrets Act 1972 where objectively, there is no longer a need for secrecy.

Sri Sanjeevan a/l Ramakrishnan v ASP Poonnam E Keling & Ors [2025] 3 MLJ 296. Federal Court decision clarifying the distinction between unlawful detention and the tort of false imprisonment under civil law.
Raja Petra Raja Kamarudin v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri [2008] 1 LNS 920. High Court decision allowing a habeas corpus challenge in respect of a detention by the Minister under section 8, Internal Security Act 1960. Related decisions can be found at Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri v Raja Petra Raja Kamarudin & Another Appeal [2009] 3 CLJ 513.
Ezam Mohd Noor v Ketua Polis Negara & Other Appeals [2002] 4 CLJ 309. Federal Court decision on detentions without trial under the Internal Security Act 1960 and habeas corpus proceedings.
Abdul Ghani Haroon v Ketua Polis Negara & Another Application (No 4) [2001] 3 CLJ 606. High Court decision on the power of the court to suspend a re-arrest under the Internal Security Act 1960.

In Re The Detention of S. Sivarasa & Ors [1997] 1 CLJ 471.

Heidy Quah Gaik Li v Kerajaan Malaysia (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. B-01(A)-514-10/2023) (unreported). Court of Appeal decision declaring the terms “offensive” and “annoy” in section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 unconstitutional for violating the protection of freedom of speech under Article 10, read with Article 8 of the Federal Constitution.
Peguam Negara Malaysia v Mkini Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Ketua Editor Malaysiakini, Civil Application No.08(L)-4-06/2020(W). On 19.02.2021, the Federal Court, by a majority of 6-1, found news portal Malaysiakini liable for contempt of court over comments made by its readers and fined the company RM500,000.
Mkini Reported Grounds of Judgment 19.02.2021 [[2021] 3 CLJ 603].
Nazrul Imran Mohd Nor v Civil Service Commission Malaysia & Anor [2021] 10 CLJ 737; This was a decision of the Court of Appeal pertaining to an appeal against the appellant’s dismissal from civil service following a comment that was made on a Facebook post of a former Prime Minister. The Court of Appeal quashed the 1st respondent’s decision to dismiss the appellant on the ground that it was irrational and disproportionate. The respondents’ application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed.
Public Prosecutor v Azmi Sharom [2015] 8 CLJ 921. Federal Court decision on an Article 4(1), Federal Constitution challenge on the validity of the Sedition Act 1948.
Haris Fatillah B. Mohd Ibrahim v Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya Malaysia, Civil Appeal No: W-01(A)-271-08/2015. Court of Appeal decision on the right of voters to information pertaining to a re-delineation exercise by the Election Commission.
Dato’ Seri Syed Hamid Syed Jaafar Albar (Menteri Dalam Negeri) v SIS Forum (Malaysia) [2012] 9 CLJ 297. Court of Appeal decision on the scope of public order and the power to ban publications concerning Islamic matters.
Muhammad Hilman Idham & Ors v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2011] 9 CLJ 50. Decision of the Court of Appeal on the entitlement of university students to involve themselves in political activities.
Raja Segaran Krishnan v Bar Council Malaysia & 2 Ors [2003] 1 LNS 538. High Court decision after trial on the entitlement of the Malaysian Bar to freely discuss allegation of judicial misconduct. Related decisions can be found at Raja Segaran Krishnan v Bar Council Malaysia & Ors (No 4) [2001] 4 CLJ 85, Raja Segaran Krishnan v Bar Council Malaysia & Ors [2001] 2 CLJ 44, Raja Segaran Krishnan v Bar Council Malaysia & Ors (No 2) [2001] 1 CLJ 680.

Khaliq Mehtab Mohd Ishaq & Anor v Dewan Undangan Negeri Pulau Pinang & Anor [2023] 9 MLJ 259. High Court decision on an application under section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 to refer questions to the Federal Court.

Teoh Meng Kee v Public Prosecutor [2014] 5 MLJ 741. Court of Appeal decision on the scope of inquests and the standard of proof.

What We Do

The Practice

Constitutional, Administrative and Human Rights Law