1

Malayan Law Journal Reports/2013/Volume 2/Dr Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj v e!uam "e!ara Malaysia # $2013% 2 MLJ 321 # 1& January 2013 1' pa!es $2013% 2 MLJ 321

Dr Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj v Peguam Negara Malaysia

FEDERAL COURT (PUTRAJA A! RAU" "#AR$F PCA% &UL'EFL$ CJ (MALA A!% #A"#$M U"OFF% "UR$ AD$ AND A#MAD MAAROP FCJJ C$($L APPEAL NO )*+,+)- OF .)*.(/! *0 Ja1uary .)*2 Administrative Law -- Judicial review -- Application for leave -- Appeal against refusal of leave -Review of second respondent's decision not to allocate funds to constituency -- Whether decision sought to be reviewed was based on policy consideration or management prerogative -- Whether decision not amenable to judicial review -- Whether issue of whether decision of first and/or second respondent amenable to judicial review could be decided at leave stage (he appellant) the Mem*er o+ arliament +or ,un!ai ,iput) ma-e an application +or the allocation o+ pu*lic monies +rom the .e-eral /onsoli-ate- .un-s to +un- certain projects +or the constituency o+ ,un!ai ,iput +or the year 2010 0the 2010 ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation23 (he Director o+ the erak ,tate Development 4++ice 05the secon- respon-ent52 in+orme- the appellant that as o+ 26 July 2010) it ha- alrea-y approve- a total o+ 6& projects value- at 1372 million +or ,un!ai ,iput) while other applications were *ein! !iven consi-eration3 (he secon- respon-ent also !ave the respon-ent practical su!!estions to channel relevant applications to relevant !overnment a!encies3 Dissatis+ie- with this -ecision) the appellant applie- *y way o+ notice o+ motion un-er 4 63 o+ the Rules o+ the 8i!h /ourt 19:0 +or leave to apply +or ju-icial review o+ the secon- respon-ent5s -ecision3 (he appellant conten-e- that the +irst an-/or the seconrespon-ent ha- e;ercise- his/their -iscretion wron!ly *y rejectin! his application +or the 2010 ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation3 (he respon-ent5s motion sou!ht) inter alia) an or-er o+ certiorari to <uash the secon- respon-ent5s -ecision an- an or-er o+ man-amus to compel the seconrespon-ent to !rant the appellant5s application +or the 2010 ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation3 (he 8i!h /ourt ju-!e !rante- the appellant5s leave application *ut on appeal the /ourt o+ 1ppeal set asi-e the or-er o+ the 8i!h /ourt3 (he /ourt o+ 1ppeal was o+ the view that the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation involve- policy consi-eration an- mana!ement prero!ative= hence it helthat the appellant5s complaint was le!ally unsustaina*le an- there+ore not ju-icially reviewa*le3 (his was an appeal *y the appellant a!ainst the -ecision o+ the /ourt o+ 1ppeal3 #el3) -ismissin! the appeal with no or-er as to costs>

1)

?n the present case the /ourt o+ 1ppeal was ri!ht in -eci-in! that our !LJ " # at " courts -i- 5not possess the knowle-!e o+ policy consi-erations that un-erlie the -ecisions5 ma-e *y the +irst an- secon- respon-ents3 (he -is*ursement o+ the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation was a policy matter) which was not within the purview o+ the courts3 @overnment policies emanate a+ter consi-eration o+ a num*er

3 o+ technical +actors that are o+ten non#le!al an- ju-!es -i- not possess the necessary in+ormation an- e;pertise to evaluate these non#le!al +actors an- to pass ju-!ment on the appropriateness o+ a particular policy 0see para 1:23 ?n the present case) the secon- respon-ent ha- clearly e;plaine-) why he -eci-ethe way he -i- with re!ar- to the -istri*ution o+ the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation an- this -ecision clearly hin!e- on matters relatin! to policy which *elon!e- to the realm o+ the e;ecutive3 Anwarrante- usurpation an- trans!ression *y the ju-iciary into the realm o+ the e;ecutive an- vice versa woul- *rin! a*out -isrepute to our system o+ !overnment) which uphol-s the separation o+ powers *etween the three main components vis#B#vis the e;ecutive) the le!islature an- the ju-iciary3 1t the same time) the court was -uty *oun- to inter+ere where the policy or action o+ the e;ecutive was inconsistent with the /onstitution or there were elements o+ mala +i-es an- a*use o+ power3 8owever) on the +acts an- circumstances o+ the present case the -ecision o+ the +irst an-/or secon- respon-ent was not amena*le to ju-icial review 0see paras 20#2123 (he issue o+ whether the -ecision o+ the +irst an-/or secon- respon-ent was amena*le to ju-icial review coul- *e -eci-e- at the leave sta!e3 ?t was not a re<uirement that the court shoul- only -eci-e on the issue a+ter hearin! all the evi-ence at the su*stantive motion +or ju-icial review3 (here was no purpose +or the 8i!h /ourt to !rant leave +or the purpose o+ investi!ation on a +ull inter partes *asis) when the supportin! -ocuments e;hi*ite- *y the appellant clearly showe- that the appellant ha- no ar!ua*le case3 8ence the /ourt o+ 1ppeal was ri!ht to set asi-e the or-er o+ the 8i!h /ourt in !rantin! leave to institute ju-icial review procee-in!s 0see paras 22#2323

1)

1)

erayu) 1hli arlimen ,un!ai ,iput) telah mem*uat permohonan untuk peruntukan wan! awam -aripa-a Cumpulan Dan! Eersatu ersekutuan untuk mem*iayai projek#projek tertentu untuk kawasan pilihan raya ,un!ai ,iput *a!i tahun 2010 05 eruntukan Chas Cawasan ilihan Raya 2010523 en!arah eja*at em*an!unan "e!eri erak 05respon-en ke-ua52 mem*eritahu perayu *ahawa sehin!!a 26 Julai 2010) ia telah pun meluluskan sejumlah 6& projek *ernilai 1372 juta untuk ,un!ai ,iput) manakala permohonan lain se-an! -ipertim*an!kan3 Respon-en ke-ua ju!a mem*erikan respon-en ca-an!an praktikal untuk menyalurkan permohonan#permohonan *erkaitan kepa-a a!ensi#a!ensi kerajaan *erkaitan3 !LJ " # at " " Eerasa ti-ak puas hati -en!an keputusan ini) perayu telah memohon melalui notis usul -i *awah 1 63 Cae-ah#Cae-ah Mahkamah (in!!i 19:0 untuk ke*enaran memohon semakan kehakiman terha-ap keputusan respon-en ke-ua3 erayu *erhujah *ahawa respon-en pertama -an/atau ke-ua telah men!!unakan *u-i *icaranya/mereka -en!an salah kerana menolak permohonannya untuk eruntukan Chas Cawasan ilihan Raya 20103 Asul yan! -ipohon respon-en) antara lain) perintah certiorari untuk mem*atalkan keputusan respon-en ke-ua -an perintah mandamus untuk men-esak respon-en ke-ua mem*enarkan permohonan perayu untuk eruntukan Chas Cawsan iihan Raya 20103 8akim Mahkamah (in!!i telah mem*erikan permohonan ke*enaran perayu tetapi semasa rayuan Mahkamah Rayuan telah men!etepikan perintah Mahkamah (in!!i3 Mahkamah Rayuan *erpen-apat *ahawa eruntukan Chas Cawasan ilihan Raya meli*atkan pertim*an!an polisi -an prero!ati+ pen!urusan= justeru ia memutuskan *ahawa a-uan perayu ti-ak -apat -ikekalkan -ari se!i un-an!#un-an! -an -en!an itu ti-ak *oleh -ikaji semula secara kehakiman3 ?ni a-alah rayuan oleh perayu terha-ap keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan3 Di4u5uska1) menolak rayuan tanpa perintah untuk kos>

'

2)

2)

2)

Dalam kes ini Mahkamah Rayuan a-alah *etul untuk memutuskan *ahawa mahkamah 5-i- not possess the knowle-!e o+ policy consi-erations that un-erlie the -ecisions5 yan! -i*uat oleh respon-en#respon-en pertama -an ke-ua3 em*ayaran eruntukan Chas Cawasan ilihan Raya merupakan perkara polisi) yan! *ukan -alam skop mahkamah3 olisi#polisi kerajaan terhasil selepas pertim*an!an *e*erapa +aktor teknikal yan! *iasanya *ukan -ari se!i perun-an!an -an para hakim ti-ak memiliki maklumat -an kepakaran yan! perlu untuk menilai +aktor#+aktor yan! *ukan *ersi+at perun-an!an -an untuk mem*eri pe!hakiman *erhu*un! kesesuaian suatu polisi tertentu 0lihat peren!!an 1:23 Dalam kes ini) respon-en ke-ua -en!an nyata menjelaskan) kenapa -ia mem*uat keputusan seperti yan! telah -ilakukannya *erhu*un! pen!a!ihan eruntukan Chas Cawasan ilihan raya -an keputusan ini jelas *er!antun! kepa-a perkara# perkara *erkaitan polisi yan! sepatutnya -alam skop eksekuti+3 ere*utan kuasa yan! ti-ak wajar -an pelan!!aran oleh *a-an kehakiman ke -alam skop eksekuti+ -an se*aliknya ju!a akan mem*awa kepa-a keai*an sistem kerajaan kita) yan! *erpe!an! kepa-a pen!asin!an kuasa antara ti!a komponen utama iaitu melalui eksekuti+) perun-an!an -an kehakiman3 a-a masa sama) mahkamah terikat -en!an kewajipan untuk campur tan!an -i mana polisi atau tin-akan eksekuti+ ti-ak konsisten -en!an erlem*a!aan atau ter-apat elemen#elemen *erniat jahat -an penyalah!unaan kuasa3 Dalau *a!aimanapun) *er-asarkan +akta -an kea-aan kes ini keputusan !LJ " # at " $ respon-en pertama -an/atau ke-ua ti-ak sesuai untuk semakan kehakiman 0lihat peren!!an 20#2123 ?su sama a-a keputusan respon-en pertama -an/atau ke-ua a-alah sesuai untuk semakan kehakiman *oleh -iputuskan -i perin!kat ke*enaran itu3 (ia-a keperluan *ahawa hanya mahkamah patut memutuskan isu itu selepas men-en!ar semua keteran!an pa-a usul su*stanti+ untuk semakan kehakiman itu3 (ia-a tujuan untuk Mahkamah (in!!i mem*erikan ke*enaran *a!i tujuan siasatan atas -asar inter partes sepenuhnya) apa*ila -okumen sokon!an yan! -iekshi*itkan oleh perayu jelas menunjukkan *ahawa perayu ti-ak mempunyai kes yan! *oleh -ihujahkan3 Justeru Mahkamah Rayuan a-alah *etul untuk men!etepikan perintah Mahkamah (in!!i -alam mem*erikan ke*enaran untuk memulakan prosi-in! semakan kehakiman 0lihat peren!!an 22#2323

N65es .or cases on application +or leave) see 1012 !allal's %igest 0'th F-) 2012 Reissue2 paras 321# 32'3 Cases re7erre3 56 A&hil 'hartiya (pbho&ta )ongress v *tate of !adhya +radesh , -rs $2012% 1 /LJ 1) ,/ 0re+-2 )ouncil of )ivil *ervice (nions v !inister for )ivil *ervices $19:6% 1/ 37') 8L 0re+-2 .overnment of !alaysia , -rs v Loh Wai /ong $1979% 2 MLJ 33) ./ 0re+-2 /umpulan +erangsang *elangor 'hd v 0aid bin 1j !ohd 2oh $1997% 1 MLJ 7:9= $1997% 2 /LJ 11) ,/ 0re+-2 La&er Airways Ltd v %epartment of 3rade $1977% 1 GE &'3) GED 0re+-2 +eguam 2egara !alaysia v %r !ichael Jeya&umar %evaraj $2012% 1 MLJ 179) /1 0+oll-2 +etroliam 2asional 'hd v 2i& Ramli 2i& 1assan $200'% 2 MLJ 2::= $2003% ' /LJ &26) ./ 0re+-2

6 R Rama )handran v 3he 4ndustrial )ourt of !alaysia , Anor $1997% 1 MLJ 1'6= $1997% 1 /LJ 1'7) ./ 0re+-2 R v )riminal 4njuries )ompensation 'oard5 e6 parte Lain $19&7% 2 1ll FR 770) GED 0re+-2 Legisla5i61 re7erre3 56 .e-eral /onstitution art :012 Rules o+ the 8i!h /ourt 19:0 4 63 ,peci+ic Relie+ 1ct 1960 /hapter V??? art 2 A44eal 7r6m8 /ivil 1ppeal "o D#01#216 o+ 2011 0/ourt o+ 1ppeal) utrajaya2 !LJ " # at " 7 Ambiga *reenevasan 8!ahaletchimi 'ala&rishnan with her9 8*reenevasan9 for the appellant: 2ar&unavathy *underason 82aatra bt 4dris with her9 8*enior ;ederal )ounsel5 ;ederal )ounsel5 Attorney .eneral's )hambers9 for the respondent: Raus "hari7 PCA (3eliveri1g ju3gme15 67 5he c6ur5! $NTRODUCT$ON 9*: (his is an appeal *y the appellant a!ainst the -ecision o+ the /ourt o+ 1ppeal on 10 4cto*er 2011) which allowe- the attorney !eneral5s appeal a!ainst the -ecision o+ the 8i!h /ourt3 (he 8i!h /ourt ha- on 2: .e*ruary 2011 -ismisse- the attorney !eneral5s o*jection to the respon-ent5s application +or leave to +ile an application +or ju-icial review un-er 4 63 o+ the Rules o+ the 8i!h /ourt 19:0 05R8/523 9.: Leave to appeal was !rante- *y this court on : March 2012 an- the <uestions +rame- +or -etermination o+ this appeal are>

1
;ues5i61 * Dhether an alle!ation that the -ecision or e;ercise o+ -iscretion sou!ht to *e reviewe- un-er ju-icial review is *ase- on policy consi-eration or mana!ement prero!ative ou!ht to *e -etermine- on an application +or leave +or ju-icial review) or whether the issue ou!ht to *e -etermine- *y the court a+ter hearin! all the evi-ence at the su*stantive motion +or ju-icial review3

2
;ues5i61 . Dhether a -ecision is alle!e- to *e *ase- on policy consi-eration or mana!ement prero!ative 05non#statutory -iscretion52 is e; +acie non#justicia*le) or whether the justicia*ility o+ such a -ecision is -epen-ent on the e;istence) nature an- e;tent o+ the non#statutory -iscretion an- on the particulars +acts o+ each case3

<AC'=ROUND FACT" 92: (he appellant is the Mem*er o+ arliament 05M 52 +or the ,un!ai ,iput

& !LJ " # at " < constituency in the ,tate o+ erak3 Ee+ore the 8i!h /ourt) the appellant ha- applie- +or leave +or ju-icial review un-er 4 63 o+ the R8/) to challen!e the -ecision o+ the Director#@eneral o+ the ?mplementation /oor-ination Anit o+ the rime Minister5s Department 05the +irst respon-ent52) the Director o+ the erak ,tate Development 4++ice 05the secon- respon-ent52 an- the @overnment o+ Malaysia 05the thir- respon-ent52 with re!ar-s to allocation o+ pu*lic monies known as the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation +rom the .e-eral /onsoli-ate- .un-s in particular to ,un!ai ,iput constituency3 9-: (he +acts lea-in! to the application are these3 4n 9 July 2010) the appellant wrote to the secon- respon-ent applyin! +or +un-s +rom the ,pecial 1llocation +or the year 2010 +or various projects an- activities an- purchases o+ e<uipments +or schools) association an- communities in ,un!ai ,iput constituency3 (he appellant state- in his letter that the projects an- activities applie+or) +all within the situations +or which +un-in! will *e an- has *een approve- accor-in! to the +irst respon-ent5s we*site) the written response *y the rime Minister5s Department in arliament anthe secon- respon-ent5s letter -ate- 19 4cto*er 20093 9>: (he +un-s applie- +or in the 2010 application were as +ollows> 0a2 .or victims o+ natural -isasters 0to *e kept in the 0*2 ,MJC ,hin /hun! 0c2 ,JC Metho-ist 0-2 "urul ?hsan 4rpana!e 0e2 ,JC0(2 Mahatma @han-i Calaalai 0+2 ,JC0(2 La-an! Doven*y 0!2 ,RJC0/2,hin! /hun! 0h2 ,! Euloh 4l- .olks5 8ome 0i2 ,! ,iput#Cuala Can!sar 1ssociation +or the -isa*le0j2 ,mall projects +or tra-itional villa!es 0k2 Meetin!s with youth in recreational parks an- villa!es 0l2 1n*u "ilayam /hil- /are /enter 0+or sin!le mothers2 0m2 ,mall projects +or 4ran! 1sli RM60)000 RM26)000 RM26)000 RM60)000 RM26)000 RM26)000 RM26)000 RM26)000 RM6)000 RM1&0)000 RM6)000 RM30)000 RM200)000

90: (he secon- respon-ent *y a letter -ate- 2& July 2010 in+orme- the appellant that>

1a)

1b)

1c)

as o+ 26 July 2010) 6& projects value- at RM1372m ha- *een approve!LJ " # at " = +or ,un!ai ,iput) nine o+ which value- at RM1316m were *ein! implemente-) while '7 projects value- at RM6&1):&6316 ha- *een complete-= the appellant5s application +or RM60)000 +or victims o+ natural -isasters to *e -eposite- in the lan- o++ice) cannot *e consi-ere- *ecause there was no allocation +or that purpose3 ?t was su!!este- that the appellant su*mits the list o+ victims concerne- to!ether with police report +or consi-eration) so that there woul- *e no overlappin! with contri*utions +rom other !overnment a!encies= anas to the appellant5s proposal +or +un-in! the relevant arent#(eachers 1ssociation 05 (152 an- other *o-ies) the appellant was re<ueste- to su*mit a list o+ names o+ the (15s an- particulars o+ account -etails +or the secon- respon-ent5s consi-eration3

9?: Ey a letter -ate- 2' 1u!ust 2010) the appellant provi-e- the -etails re<ueste- *y the seconrespon-ent 0in para 6332 an- sou!ht the secon- respon-ent5s clari+ication a*out the approveprojects3 9@: (he secon- respon-ent *y a letter -ate- 12 4cto*er 2010 0written response2 in+orme- the appellant that>

2a) 2b)

2c)

1d)

the +un-s +or the victims o+ natural -isasters were rejecte- earlier *y " erak5s letter -ate- 2& July 2010= the contri*ution inclu-es !rants to or!anisation an- societies such as the ,MJC ,hin! /hun! 0"ational (ype ,econ-ary ,chool2 (1 Metho-ist ,chool (1 an"urul ?hsan 4rphana!e coul- not *e consi-ere- as the +un-s were alrea-y approve- in 2010 which inclu-e- contri*utions to or!anisations an- associations such as the arent (eachers 1ssociations o+ ,MJC ,hinn /hun! an- ,JC Metho-ist an- "urul ?hsan 4rphana!e3 1s the allocation was limite-) parties that ha- receive- such contri*utions woul- not *e consi-ere-= as +or allocations sou!ht +or various schools an- or!anisations which woul- inclu-e ,JC0(2 Mahtma @an-hi Calasalai) ,JC0(2 La-an! Doven*y) ,RJC0/2 ,hin! /hin!) ,! Euluh 4l- .olks5 8ome) ,! ,iput#Cuala Can!sar 1ssociation +or the -isa*le-) small projects +or tra-itional villa!es) meetin!s with youth in recreational parks anvilla!es) an- 1n*u "ilayam /hil- /are /enter 0+or sin!le mothers23 (he appellant was -uly in+orme- that the necessity o+ these propose- contri*utions woul- *e assesse-= an+or minor projects in the 4ran! 1sli villa!es) the appellant was a-vise- to su*mit the application to the Department o+ 4ran! 1sli 1++airs3 !LJ " # at " >

9,: 1!!rieve- *y the written response) the appellant on 29 4cto*er 2010 +ile- an application +or leave to institute ju-icial review procee-in!s a!ainst the respon-ents seekin! the +ollowin! or-ers that>

3a)

3b)

a writ o+ 5<uo warranto5 *e issue- a!ainst the respon-ents an- each o+ them to show cause an- !ive in+ormation as to their authority to e;ercise) vest an-/or -ele!ate the -iscretion to approve an- -is*urse +un-s +rom the .e-eral /onsoli-ate- .un-s which are allocate- in the .e-eral Eu-!et 2010 an- any annual .e-eral Eu-!et to the rime Minister5s Department 0as 5 eruntukan Chas5 or 5 eruntukan Chas er-ana Menteri untuk Cawasan arlimen52 +or all parliamentary constituencies 05,pecial /onstituency 1llocation52) an- to e;plain their respective roles an- relationship in relation to one another= an or-er o+ man-amus to compel the respon-ents an- each o+ them to speci+y> 1. the kin- o+ projects an- activities +or which application +or +un-s +rom the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation will *e !rante-= 1. who can apply +or +un-s +rom the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation= 1. all con-itions an- criteria taken into consi-eration *y the respon-ents in !rantin! +un-in! applications +or the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation= an1. the time limit within which -ecisions on applications +or the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation will *e ma-e3 a -eclaration that) in accor-ance with art :012 o+ the .e-eral /onstitution) the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation must *e provi-e- an- ma-e availa*le to all Mem*ers o+ arliament e<ually) that the power an- -iscretion veste- in the respon-ents or any o+ them to approve applications +or +un-s +rom the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation must *e e;ercise- e<ually an- e<uita*ly amon!st all Mem*ers o+ arliament an- all cate!ories o+ applicants) re!ar-less o+ political a++iliations) an- that the same criteria or con-itions must *e applie- in consi-erin! all such applications=

1 3c)

2d) 1e)

a -eclaration that the -ecision o+ the secon- respon-ent set out in the seconrespon-ent5s letter -ate- 12 4cto*er 2010 or any part thereo+ is a *reach o+ art :012 o+ the .e-eral /onstitution an- as a result) unconstitutional an- voi-= an or-er o+ certiorari to <uash the -ecision o+ the secon- respon-ent as set out in the secon- respon-ent5s letter -ate- 12 4cto*er 2010 or any part thereo+) anconse<uently> 2. an or-er o+ man-amus to compel the respon-ents or any o+ them to !rant the applicant5s application vi-e his letter -ate- 9 July 2010 to !LJ " # at " ? the secon- respon-ent +or +un-s +rom the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation +or the ,un!ai ,iput arliamentary /onstituency 0 &22 +or the year 2010) or 2. in the alternative) an or-er o+ man-amus to compel the respon-ents to e;ercise their -iscretion to !rant applicant5s application vi-e his letter -ate- 9 July 2010 to the secon- respon-ent +or +un-s +rom the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation +or the ,un!ai ,iput arliamentary /onstituency 0 &22 +or the year 2010 in accor-ance with the !ui-elines an- practice speci+ie- pursuant to prayer 2 a*ove an- art :012 o+ the .e-eral /onstitution pursuant to prayer 3 a*ove= an or-er o+ man-amus to compel the respon-ents to speci+y> 3. all projects an- activities +or which application +or +un-s +rom the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation has *een !rante- since 200: +or the ,un!ai ,iput arliamentary /onstituency 0 &22= 3. the num*er o+ applications receive-) the persons or parties whose applications were approve- an- rejecte- an- the persons or parties to whom the +un-s were -is*urse- +or the applications that were approve- vis a vis the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation since 200: +or the ,un!ai ,iput arliamentary /onstituency 0 &22= an2. the time limits within which the applications +or +un-s +rom the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation since 200: +or the ,un!ai ,iput arliamentary /onstituency 0 &22) were -eci-e-= -ama!es an-/or punitive) a!!ravate- an-/or e;emplary -ama!es to *e pai- to the appellant *y the respon-ents= an in<uiry an-/or at the appellant5s option an assessment o+ -ama!es an-/or punitive) a!!ravate- an-/or e;emplary -ama!es to *e pai- to the appellant *y the respon-ents= costs= anall necessary an- conse<uential relie+) or-ers an-/or -irections3

2 1f)

3 1g) 1h) 1i) 1j)

9*): (he attorney !eneral ha- o*jecte- to the leave application on the +ollowin! !roun-s>

4a)

in respect o+ the prayer +or a writ o+ <uo warrants ## 4. the relie+ was not suita*le as the appellant was not challen!in! the appointment or <uali+ication o+ either the +irst respon-ent or the seconrespon-ent= 4. there were no +acts or !roun-s in the appellant5s application to sustain an application +or that relie+= an1. !LJ " # at ""@

3. 4 4b)

the appellant was usin! that prero!ative writ to elicit in+ormation +rom the +irst respon-ent an- the secon- respon-ent that he ha- alrea-y sou!ht ano*taine- as a Mem*er o+ arliament +or ,un!ai ,iput=

in respect o+ the prayer +or an or-er o+ man-amus ## 5. the application -i- not comply with the provisions o+ /hapter V??? art 2 o+ the ,peci+ic Relie+ 1ct 1960= an5. such an application was tantamount to compellin! the secon- respon-ent to approve the appellant5s application an- there+ore contrary to esta*lisheprinciples o+ law= in respect o+ the prayer +or a -eclaration) that such an application was an a*use o+ the process o+ the court= that the appellant5s application involve- policy consi-eration an- the mana!ement prero!ative o+ the +irst respon-ent an- the secon- respon-ent re!ar-in! the -is*ursement o+ the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation= anthat the court was not a suita*le +orum to ar*itrate on a -ecision re!ar-in! the -is*ursement o+ the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation3

5 4c) 3d) 2e)

9**: 4n 2: .e*ruary 2011) the learne- 8i!h /ourt ju-!e) -ismisse- the o*jection *y the attorney !eneral an- allowe- the appellant5s application +or leave to institute ju-icial review procee-in!s3 (he learne- 8i!h /ourt ju-!e was o+ the view that a mere assertion that a matter was a mana!ement prero!ative an- there+ore not reviewa*le *y the court was insu++icient to reject the appellant5s application3 8er La-yship +oun- that there were issues that !o to the merits o+ the application which ou!ht to *e resolve- at the hearin! o+ the su*stantive motion3 9*.: 1!!rieve- with the -ecision o+ the 8i!h /ourt) the attorney !eneral appeale- to the /ourt o+ 1ppeal3 4n 10 4cto*er 2011) the /ourt o+ 1ppeal unanimously allowe- the appeal an- set asi-e the or-er o+ the 8i!h /ourt3 (he /ourt o+ 1ppeal was o+ the view that>

5a)

5b)

5c)

the appellant as a Mem*er o+ arliament ha- alrea-y sou!ht an- o*taine- in arliament the relevant in+ormations re!ar-in! the allocations sou!ht an- since the appellant was not challen!in! the <uali+ication an- appointment o+ the +irst respon-ent an- the secon- respon-ent or any le!al +law in their <uali+ications anappointments) the relie+ sou!ht was outsi-e the scope o+ a writ o+ <uo warranto= on the +acts as set out *y the appellant as +oun- in the a++i-avit in support) there was a proper e;ercise o+ -iscretion *y the +irst respon-ent an-/or the !LJ " # at ""# secon- respon-ent in rejectin! the application sou!ht *y the appellant which was in line with policy consi-eration an- mana!ement prero!ative= anthe -is*ursement o+ the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocations involve- policy consi-eration an- mana!ement prero!ative= hence) the appellant5s complaint was le!ally unsustaina*le an- there+ore not ju-icially reviewa*le3

$""UE" AND F$ND$N=" 9*2: Ease- on the two <uestions o+ law pose- to us) learne- counsel +or the appellant) Dato5 1m*i!a ,reenevasan su*mitte- that thou!h the -ecisions o+ the +irst respon-ent an-/or seconrespon-ent were alle!e- to *e *ase- on policy consi-eration or mana!ement prero!ative) they were reviewa*le= an- hence) justicia*le3 ?n support thereo+) she re+erre- to the cases o+ .overnment of !alaysia , -rs v Loh Wai /ong $1979% 2 MLJ 33) )ouncil of )ivil *ervice (nions

10 v !inister for )ivil *ervices $19:6% 1/ 37') R v )riminal 4njuries )ompensation 'oard5 e6 parte Lain $19&7% 2 1ll FR 770) La&er Airways Ltd v %epartment of 3rade $1977% 1 GE &'3 an- the recent ?n-ian ,upreme /ourt case o+ A&hil 'hartiya (pbho&ta )ongress v *tate of !adhya +radesh , -rs $2012% 1 /LJ 13 ,he ar!ue- that at the very least the issue ou!ht to *e -etermine*y the court a+ter hearin! all the evi-ence at the su*stantive motion +or ju-icial review3 ,he pointe- out that the /ourt o+ 1ppeal5s -ecision was ma-e in the a*sence o+ any evi-entiary support an- was contrary to the prevailin! law on the le!al *ur-en impose- on parties in a ju-icial review procee-in!) as the sai- -ecision allowe- the respon-ents to 5escape5 ju-icial review on a mere unsu*stantiate- alle!ation o+ 5non justicia*le prero!ative5) without nee-in! to satis+y the le!al *ur-en on them to prove the same3 9*-: Learne- senior +e-eral counsel) uan "arkunavathy maintaine- the attorney !eneral5s position +rom the *e!innin! that the relie+s sou!ht *y the appellant were non#reviewa*le an- non# justicia*le *ecause they involve- policy consi-erations which was the mana!ement prero!ative o+ the +irst respon-ent an-/or the secon- respon-ent) where -ecisions involve- were an e;ercise o+ -iscretion3 ?n support thereo+) she re+erre- to the +ollowin! cases o+ R Rama )handran v 3he 4ndustrial )ourt of !alaysia , Anor $1997% 1 MLJ 1'6= $1997% 1 /LJ 1'7= )ouncil of )ivil *ervice (nions v !inister of )ivil *ervice an- /umpulan +erangsang *elangor 'hd v 0aid bin 1j !ohd 2oh $1997% 1 MLJ 7:9= $1997% 2 /LJ 113 ,he +urther su*mitte- that the supportin! -ocuments e;hi*ite- *y the appellant are su++icient evi-ence +or the court to -eci-e on the issues without nee-in! the respon-ents to a--uce +urther evi-ence3 !LJ " # at "" 9*>: ?t was clear +rom the appellant5s notice o+ motion that the issues *e+ore us relate to the -ecisions o+ the respon-ents with re!ar- to the -is*ursement o+ the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation3 (he appellant conten-e- that his application +or 2010 ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation +or various projects) activities an- purchase o+ e<uipment o+ school) association an- communities in ,un!ai ,iput were rejecte- *y the secon- respon-ent an- in -oin! so the +irst respon-ent an-/or the secon- respon-ent ha- e;ercise- his/their -iscretion wron!ly3 (he <uestion is) whether such e;ercise o+ -iscretion is amena*le to ju-icial review3 9*0: De have no hesitation in acceptin! that the e;ecutive5s -iscretion) whether *y statute or prero!ative is amena*le to ju-icial review3 8owever) whether such -iscretion is amena*le to ju-icial review is -epen-ent on the +acts o+ each case 0see R Rama )handran) /umpulan +erangsang 'hd an- +etroliam 2asional 'hd v 2i& Ramli 2i& 1assan $200'% 2 MLJ 2::= $2003% ' /LJ &263 ?t was !enerally hel- in those cases that not every -ecision o+ the e;ecutive coul- *e su*jecte- to ju-icial review3 9*?: ?n the instant case) the /ourt o+ 1ppeal in -ealin! with the issue hel- that>
?n our view) an- as implie- in the notice o+ motion) there can *e no -ou*t that the approval an-is*ursement o+ the +un- involves an e;ercise o+ -iscretion3 (he D@ an-/or the -irector must evaluate the applications +or the allocations3 (hese applications can only *e -eci-e- *y the D@ an-/or the -irector in line with policy consi-erations an- mana!ement prero!atives3 (he +actual *ack!roun- -i- show that the appellants ha- approve- the respon-ent5s application amountin! to RM1372m) while other applications are *ein! !iven consi-eration3 (he -irector has !iven practical su!!estions to the respon-ent to channel relevant applications to relevant !overnment a!encies3 ?n the process o+ evaluation) the D@ an-/or the -irector must comprehensively *alance an- sa+e!uar- the -is*ursement o+ the allocation) consistent with !overnment policy an- !ui-elines3 4ur courts -o not possess the knowle-!e o+ policy consi-erations that un-erlie the -ecisions pursuant to the D@ an-/or the -irector5s evaluation3

9*@: De are in complete a!reement with the a*ove view3 De woul- like to a-- that the -is*ursement o+ the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation is a policy matter which is not within the purview o+ the courts3 ?t is our view that the courts is in no position to evaluate the <uali+ications in the application +or the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation an- to -etermine or -eci-e on the policy

11 ma-e *y the e;ecutive3 De have to take co!nisance o+ the +act that !overnment policies emanate a+ter consi-eration o+ a num*er o+ technical +actors which are o+ten non le!al= an- ju-!es -o not possess the necessary in+ormation an- e;pertise to evaluate these non#le!al +actors an- to pass ju-!ment on the appropriateness or a-e<uacy o+ a particular policy3 !LJ " # at """ 9*,: ?n this re!ar-) we woul- <uote the relevant passa!es o+ the renown authors) M Jain an- ," Jain +rom their *ook entitle- +rinciples of Administrative Law 0&th F-2) at p 10&9>
?t is not normally within the -omain o+ any court to wei!h the pros an- cons o+ the policy or to scrutiniHe it an- test the -e!ree o+ its *ene+icial or e<uita*le -isposition +or the purpose o+ varyin! or annullin! it) *ase- on howsoever soun- an- !oo- reasonin!) e;cept where it is ar*itrary or violative o+ any constitution) statutory or any provision o+ law3 Dhen the !overnment +orms its policy it is *ase- on a num*er o+ circumstance on +acts) law) inclu-in! constraints *ase- on these resources3 ?t is also *ase- on its e;pert opinion) it woul- *e -an!erous i+ court is aske- to test the utility) *ene+iciat e++ect o+ the policy or its appraisal *ase- on +acts set out on a++i-avits3 (he court woul- -issua-e itsel+ +rom enterin! into this realm which *elon!s to the e;ecutive 0see *tate of +unjab v Ram Lubhaya 'agga) 1?R 199: ,/ 170323 4n matters a++ectin! policy an- re<uirin! technical e;pertise) the court woul- leave the matter +or -ecision o+ those who are <uali+ie- to a--ress this issue3 Anless the policy or action is inconsistent with the constitution an- the laws or ar*itrary or irrational or a*use o+ power) the court will not inter+ere with such matters 0see ;ederation of Railway -fficers Assn v (-45 1?R 2003 ,/ 13''23

9.): ?n the present case) the secon- respon-ent ha- clearly e;plaine-) why he -eci-e- the way he -i- with re!ar- to the -istri*ution o+ the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation +or the ,un!ai ,iput constituency3 /learly) what was -eci-e- *y the secon- respon-ent hin!e- on matters relatin! to policy an- thus we woul- -issua-e ourselves +rom enterin! into the realm which *elon!s to the e;ecutive3 /ourts must *e wary o+ un-uly e;ten-in! its ju-icial arms to policy matters which are e;clusively within the -omain o+ the e;ecutive3 Anwarrante- usurpation an- trans!ression *y the ju-iciary into the realm o+ the e;ecutive an- vice versa will *rin! a*out -isrepute to our system o+ !overnment which uphol-s the separation o+ powers *etween the three main components vis a vis the e;ecutive) the le!islature an- the ju-iciary3 9.*: 4+ course) in appropriate cases the courts as the custo-ian o+ law an- justice must not remain i-le3 Dhere the policy or action o+ the e;ecutive is inconsistent with the /onstitution anthe law or in any manner ar*itrary) irrational or there are elements o+ mala +i-es an- a*use o+ power) the court is -uty *oun- to inter+ere3 Dhether or not the court shoul- inter+ere clearly -epen-s on the +acts an- circumstances o+ each case3 4n the +acts an- circumstance o+ this case we are incline- to a!ree with the /ourt o+ 1ppeal that the -ecision o+ the +irst respon-ent an-/or the secon- respon-ent is not amena*le to ju-icial review3 9..: De are also in a!reement with the /ourt o+ 1ppeal that) the issue o+ whether the -ecision o+ the +irst respon-ent an-/or the secon- respon-ent is amena*le to ju-icial review coul- *e -eci-e- at the leave sta!e3 Like the /ourt !LJ " # at ""$ o+ 1ppeal we are not persua-e- with the appellant5s contention that the issue shoul- only *e -eci-e- at the su*stantive sta!e3 4ur view is that no +urther evi-ence is necessary in this case) as ri!htly pointe- *y the learne- senior +e-eral counsel) the supportin! -ocuments e;hi*ite- *y the appellant which inclu-e in+ormation +rom the rime Minister5s Department5s we*pa!e o+ the +irst respon-ent5s activities an- the <uestions an- answers re!ar-in! the ,pecial /onstituency 1llocation in arliament are su++icient material +or the court to -eci-e on the issue3 9.2: Dith respect) we see no purpose +or the 8i!h /ourt to !rant leave just +or the purpose o+ investi!ation on a +ull inter parties *asis) when the supportin! -ocuments e;hi*ite- *y the appellant clearly show that the appellant has no ar!ua*le case3 8ence) the /ourt o+ 1ppeal was ri!ht to set asi-e the or-er o+ the 8i!h /ourt in !rantin! leave to institute ju-icial review procee-in!s3 De are o+ the same view with the /ourt o+ 1ppeal that leave to institute ju-icial review procee-in!s ou!ht not to have *een !rante- *y the 8i!h /ourt in this case3

12 9.-: (hus) our answers to the two <uestions pose- to us are very much -epen-ent on the +acts o+ each case3 4n the +irst <uestion) we are o+ the view that the -ecision or e;ercise o+ -iscretion sou!ht to *e reviewe- un-er ju-icial review *ase- on policy consi-eration or mana!ement prero!ative may *e -etermine- at the leave sta!e itsel+3 ?t is not a re<uirement that the court must only -eci-e on the issue a+ter hearin! all the evi-ence at the su*stantive motion +or ju-icial review3 9.>: 1s to the secon- <uestion) the justicia*ility o+ such -ecision is -epen-ent on the particular +acts o+ the case3 4n the +acts o+ this case) we a!ree with the /ourt o+ 1ppeal that the issues raise- in the notice o+ motion +or leave were not ju-icially reviewa*le an- hence not justi+ia*le3 9.0: .or the +ore!oin! reasons the appeal is -ismisse-3 1s a!ree- *y parties we make no or-er as to costs3 Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs:

Reporte- *y Cohila "esan