The court affirmed that military personnel's compliance with lawful orders, including vaccination mandates, is essential for operational integrity, and judicial review does not extend to policy decisions made by military authorities.

Introduction

[1] The Applicant filed a judicial review application (encl 7) under O 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) seeking inter alia the following reliefs:

1.1 A direction of the nature of a writ of certiorari to quash the Letter of Discharge dated 4 August 2021, discharging the Applicant from service;

1.2 A declaration that the Letter of Discharge dated 4 August 2021 and the early discharge of the Applicant is null and void and of no effect;

1.3 Costs; and

1.4 Such other relief as may be moulded by this Honourable Court as the facts and circumstances of the case demands.

[2] After the hearing, I dismissed the Applicant's judicial review application (Encl 7). I now set out the grounds for my judgment.

Background Facts

[3] The background facts gathered from the cause papers, Affidavit in Support and submission of the parties are largely undisputed and can be summarized as follows:

3.1 The Applicant is a former army sergeant in the Royal Malay Regiment's 24th battalion based in the Rasah Camp, Negeri Sembilan and had been in army service for nineteen years.

3.2 The Applicant's date of discharge would have had on 20 January 2023. However, he was discharged earlier from army service on 26 August 2021 due to four offences that allegedly committed by him under the Armed Forces Act 1972 (Act 77).

3.3 The First Respondent is the Commanding Officer of the Royal Malay Regiment's 24th battalion having an address of service at Kern Rasah, 70300 Seremban, Negeri Sembilan.

3.4 The Second Respondent is the officer who signed the Letter of Discharge dated 4 August 2021 which the Applicant alleged that he was wrongfully discharged from army service.

3.5 The First and Second Respondents were under the supervision, control, direction, law and policy administration of the Third to the Fifth Respondents who are vicariously liable for their acts.

3.6 On 9 March 2021, the Markas 1 Briged circulated the COVID-19 Vaccine Instruction which was issued by the Malaysian Army Military Base Headquarters to all teams under the Markas 1 Briged.

3.7 On 15 March 2021, the First Respondent issued a Standing Order instructing all members to obey the COVID-19 vaccination order.

3.8 On 5 July 2021, the Applicant was interviewed by the First Respondent and the Applicant's superior officer, Captain Noor Azlan bin Husin, Kompeni A Leader, regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. During the interview, the Applicant expressed his refusal to accept the COVID-19 vaccine.

3.9 On 6 July 2021, the Applicant's superior officer conducted a follow-up interview with the Applicant. Anyhow, the Applicant still refusing to receive the vaccine.

3.10 On 7 July 2021, the Applicant was interviewed by the Team Medical Officer, Kompeni A Platoon Leader and Kompeni Sergeant Major. The Applicant was given counselling by the Team Religious Officer. Despite these efforts, all the interview and counselling sessions were unsuccessful in convincing the Applicant to receive the Covid-19 vaccine.

3.11 Subsequently, the Applicant's superior officer conducted a follow-up interrogation with the Applicant and clearly stated all the instructions for taking the Covid-19 vaccine. However, the Applicant continued to refuse to take the Covid-19 vaccine and disobeyed the lawful command of his superior officer to do so.

3.12 The Applicant was then charged under four sections of Act 77 for the following offences: (i) disobeying orders to be vaccinated (s 50(2) Act 77), (ii) using threatening or insubordinate language to a superior officer (s 49(b) Act 77), (iii) disobedience to a Standing Order (s 51 Act 77), and (iv) conduct to the pr