The judicial proceedings of the Judges' Ethics Committee are mandated to be conducted in camera as per statutory provisions, affirming the requirement for confidentiality in such inquiries.

Introduction

[1] This is the applicant's application for judicial review under O 53 Rules of 2012 which seeks inter alia for the followings:

(i) That the applicant be granted leave to commence judicial review for the reliefs set out hereunder;

(ii) An order of certiorari to remove into the High Court for the purposes of it being quashed the decision of the respondents particularised in the first respondent's letters dated 28 September 2020 and 29 September 2020 and/or to carry on the Judges' Ethics Committee's proceedings in camera;

(iii) A declaration that the respondents' decision particularised in the first respondent's letters dated 28 September 2020 and 29 September 2020 are null and void for breaches of arts 5 and 8 of the Federal Constitution , principles of natural justice, procedural fairness and irrationality;

(iv) A declaration that the respondents have acted unconstitutionality and/or ultra vires their powers in preparing the charges as particularised in Appendix A to the first respondent's notice dated 10 August 2020;

(v) A declaration that the charges prepared by the respondents as particularised in Appendix A to the first respondent's notice dated 10 August 2020 are null and void;

(vi) A declaration that the composition and constitution of the seven members of the second respondent as particularised in the first respondent's letter dated 24 August 2020 to preside, hear and/or deliberate over the complaints and matters raised in the first respondent's notice dated 10 August 2020, breaches the rules of natural justice, procedural fairness and/or the rule of law;

(vii) A declaration that the first respondent, as Chairman of the Judges' Ethics Committee is disqualified to preside, hear and/or deliberate over the complaints and matters raised in the first respondent's notice dated 10 August 2020;

(viii) A declaration that the six members of the Judges' Ethics Committee as particularised in the first respondent's letter dated 24 August 2020 constituted by the first respondent to preside, hear and/or deliberate over the complaints and matters raised in the first respondent's notice dated 10 August 2020 be set aside and/or dissolved;

(ix) A declaration that the first respondent's notice dated 10 August 2020 be set aside as it is unconstitutional and in breach of the principles of natural justice, procedural fairness and/or the rule of law;

(x) That all proceedings before the Judges' Ethics Committee against the applicant be forthwith stayed until further orders and/or determination of this Honourable Court; and

(xi) That there be no order as to costs.

[2] It is also important to note that the applicant in this action has also filed a separate suit in this Court challenging the validity and constitutionality of the said first respondent's notice dated 10 August 2020 vide Originating Summons No WA-24-55-10-2020 ("OS No 55").

Salient Facts

[3] The applicant, at material and present times, is a sitting judge of the Court of Appeal, Malaysia.

[4] The first respondent is the Chairman of the Judges' Ethics Committee in which by virtue of s 5(2) of the Judges' Ethics Committee Act 2010 ( JECA 2010), the Chief Justice shall be the chairman of the committee.

[5] The second defendant is the Judges' Ethics Committee that is constituted under JECA 2010.

[6] The crux of the dispute which led to the filing of this judicial review application by the applicant revolves around two written complaints levelled against him by other judges to the first respondent pursuant to para 12 of the JCE 2009. For ease of reference, para 12 of JCE 2009 provides the followings:

Complaint Against Judge

12. Any compla