Citizenship by operation of law requires strict adherence to constitutional provisions; adoptive parents cannot confer citizenship rights based on their status.

Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh J:

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff is 27 years old. On 7 April 2025,1 dismissed her application for citizenship by operation of law brought in this originating summons. The main reliefs sought were framed as follows:

(a) A declaration that the plaintiff is a citizen pursuant to art 14(1)(b) read with s 1(a) of Part II of the Second Schedule and Section 19B of Part III of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitutionp.

(b) A declaration that the plaintiff is a citizen pursuant to art 14(1)(b) read with ss 1(e) and 2(3) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution .

(c) In the alternative to (a) above, a declaration that the plaintiff is a citizen of pursuant to art 14(1)(b) read with s 1(a) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution by virtue of the citizenship status of her adopted parents, Selvarani a/p Muthiah and Kuppa a/I Anthoney.

[2] The other reliefs sought are consequential, in the event one of the above reliefs are granted, namely, to issue a birth certificate stating that the plaintiff is a citizen of Malaysia and issuing her with a Malaysian identity card.

[3] For the sake of brevity, unless otherwise stated, all references in this judgment to "Articles" and "Second Schedule" are to that of the Federal Constitution . Similarly, and unless otherwise stated, any references to Part II or Part III are to that of the Second Schedule of the .

The Background

[4] The facts are not in dispute. Subsequently, she was adopted by a married couple, Selvarani a/p Muthiah and Kuppa a/I Anthoney, both of whom are citizens of Malaysia ("the couple"). A late application for registration of birth of the plaintiff was made on 20 June 2008, ie, when the plaintiff was 12 years old. The application for registration was approved on 11 May 2009.

[5] Based on the information given to register the birth, the name of the plaintiff was given as Glorya, and her birth date as 1 January 1997. On 1 June 2009, a birth certificate ("the 1st Birth Certificate") was issued by the Registrar General of Births and Deaths ("the Registrar General") at the National Registration Department, District of Temerloh, Pahang. The information of her biological parents was stated as "no information," and her citizenship status as "not determined".

[6] On 23 July 2012, the couple formally adopted the plaintiff under the Adoption Act 1952 . The couple then made an application to the Registrar General to register the fact of adoption. On 3 April 2012, the fact of adoption was registered at the National Registration Department at Putrajaya. The Registrar General, based on the fact of adoption, issued a new birth certificate ("the 2nd Birth Certificate"). In view of the adoption, the 2nd Birth Certificate stated the particulars of the couple as the parents of the plaintiff and the status of citizenship as "non-citizen".

[7] Thereafter, the adopted father, Kuppa a/I Anthoney, made two applications to the Government of Malaysia under art 15A for registration of citizenship. Both applications were rejected on 20 December 2012 and 10 March 2014, respectively. The third application made by the adopted mother, Selvarani a/p Muthiah, was also rejected on 25 April 2018. Hence, this application by the plaintiff in her own capacity.

Citizenship By Operation Of Law

[8] Citizenship by operation of law has been declared by the Federal Court as a fundamental right and all related bodies are bound by to comply with the dictates of art 14(1)(b) read with any of the paragraphs of s 1 of Part II. There is no discretion on any person, including the courts, to confer citizenship. It is by operation of the Federal Constitution . One either fulfils the conditions or does not fulfil the conditions. Failure to fulfil the conditions would result in the dismissal of an application for citizenship by operation of law. (Pendaftar Besar Kelahiran Dan Kematian Malaysia v. Pang Wee See & Anor 2017 MarsdenLR 1676 ; 2025 MarsdenLR 6620