Petitioner Advocates:Cyrus Das,Chan Kok Keong,Samuel Tan Lih Yau ,Respondent Advocate: Nik Suhaimi Nik Sulaiman,Ahmad Fuad Othman,Rafiqha Hanim Mohd Rosli,Mohd Abdul Hakim Ali

In this case, judicial independence is a central constitutional principle that is critically examined in relation to the powers conferred on the courts and the role of judicial officers. The court emphasizes that judicial power must be exercised solely by judges who are appointed to hold judicial office, and not by non-judicial persons or lay assessors (!) .

The independence of the judiciary is seen as fundamental to maintaining public confidence in the judicial system and ensuring that disputes, particularly those involving property rights and compensation, are resolved impartially and according to law (!) .

The case highlights that the judicial power is inherently linked to the authority and integrity of judges acting within their proper judicial capacity. Any legislative or procedural provisions that attempt to transfer or usurp this power—such as empowering assessors to decide on the quantum of compensation—are viewed as infringing upon judicial independence (!) . Such provisions threaten to undermine the separation of powers, a core constitutional doctrine that safeguards the judiciary from undue influence by the executive or legislative branches (!) .

The court underscores that the exercise of judicial power must be carried out in accordance with the judicial process, which includes the impartial assessment of evidence, application of legal principles, and the rendering of decisions by qualified judges (!) . When legislative amendments or procedural rules diminish the role of judges in favor of lay assessors or other non-judicial entities in matters that require judicial discretion and decision-making, it compromises the independence and integrity of the judiciary (!) .

Furthermore, the decision stresses that the judiciary's independence is essential for upholding constitutional protections, such as the right to fair compensation and the right to appeal (!) . Any encroachment upon judicial functions or attempts to limit judicial review and decision-making authority are viewed as threats to the constitutional fabric that guarantees an independent judiciary (!) .

Overall, the case reaffirms that judicial independence is a non-negotiable feature of the constitutional framework, and any legislative or procedural measures that undermine the judiciary's exclusive authority to exercise judicial power are constitutionally invalid (!) . The judiciary must retain the authority to decide disputes impartially, free from external influence, thereby preserving the rule of law and the constitutional order (!) .