State laws cannot limit constitutional rights without parliamentary consent, rendering such laws unconstitutional.

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal declaring s 66 of the Syariah Criminal (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 1992 to be invalid as being unconstitutional due to inconsistency with arts 5(1), 8(1), (2), 9(2) and 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution .

[2] The 1st appellant is the State Government of Negeri Sembilan. The 2nd appellant is the Islamic Affairs Department of Negeri Sembilan, which is a department of the 1st appellant responsible for Islamic affairs within the State of Negeri Sembilan. The 3rd appellant is the Director of the 2nd appellant.

[3] The 4th appellant is the Chief Religious Enforcement Officer of Negeri Sembilan, who is appointed pursuant to s 79 of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 2003. Amongst his duties is the carrying out of investigations under any written law in Negeri Sembilan prescribing offences against the precepts of the religion of Islam.

[4] The 5th appellant is the Chief Syarie Prosecutor of Negeri Sembilan who is appointed pursuant to s 78(1) of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 2003. The 5th appellant has the power exercisable at his discretion to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence before a Syariah Court in Negeri Sembilan.

[5] The 6th appellant is a body established under s 4 of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 2003 to aid and advise the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan in matters relating to the religion of Islam.

[6] The three respondents are bridal make-up artists professing the religion of Islam. They are men suffering from a medical condition called Gender Identity Disorder (GID). Due to their condition, the respondents have been expressing themselves as women and showing mannerisms of the feminine gender such as wearing women's clothes and make-up.

Background Facts

[7] On 4 November 2011, the respondents were granted leave to file an application for judicial review by the Seremban High Court under O 53 r 3 of the Rules of the High 1980 (RHC 1980). The reliefs sought by the respondents are as follows:

(a) a declaration that s 66 is inconsistent with arts 5(1), 8(2), 9(2) and 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution and is thus null and void;

(b) alternatively, a declaration that s 66 has no effect and does not apply to any person who is:

(i) psychologically a woman; and

(ii) suffering from "GID";

(c) alternatively, a Prohibition Order or a revision according to para 1 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 to be issued to the Chief Religious Enforcement Officer of Negeri Sembilan (the 4th appellant) and the Chief Syarie Prosecutor of Negeri Sembilan (the 5th appellant) restraining them from carrying out an investigation or proceeding with an investigation for an offence under the impugned s 66 against the respondents and against any person, if they submit a report from a psychologist that they are psychologically women or suffer from "GID".

[8] On 11 October 2012, the respondents' application for judicial review was dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved, the respondents filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[9] On 7 November 2014, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and amongst others declared that s 66 was unconstitutional as being inconsistent with arts 5(1), 8(1), (2), 9(2) and 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution .

[10] The 1st to the 5th appellants then filed an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court. At the same time, the 6th appellant, together with Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan, Majlis Agama