Section 3(3) of the Sedition Act 1948 is unconstitutional as it denies the essential element of intention in proving offences, violating rights under the Federal Constitution.

[1] This case concerns an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal reversing the decision of the High Court, which had, on 23 December 2015 dismissed the respondent's application in Originating Summons No: 24-36-092014 [encl 1]. In encl 1, the respondent applied for a declaration that s 3 of the Sedition Act 1948 ('Act 15') read with s 4 of the same Act was inconsistent with (bercanggah dengan) art 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution. In dismissing the respondent's application in encl 1, the High Court held that the respondent's application was an abuse of the process. The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court decision, considered the merits of encl 1, and made the following declaration:

" Section 3 (3) of the Sedition Act 1948 , contravenes Art 10 of the Federal Constitution and therefore is invalid and of no effect in law."

[2] This Court granted leave to the appellant to appeal on the following questions of law:

"(1) Sama ada tindakan mencabar keperlembagaan s 3 Akta Hasutan 1948 [Akta 15] yang dibuat dalam prosiding sivil di mana persoalan tersebut telah diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam Rayuan Jenayah yang melibatkan pemohon yang sama terjumlah kepada penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah?

[Whether a challenge to the constitutionality of s 3 of the Sedition Act 1948 [Act 15] made in civil proceedings when the same had been determined by the Court of Appeal in a criminal appeal involving the same applicant amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court.]

(2) Sama ada tindakan mencabar keperlembagaan s 3 Akta Hasutan 1948 [Akta 15] yang dibuat dalam prosiding sivil adalah res judicata memandangkan tindakan mencabar yang sama telah dibuat dalam prosiding jenayah oleh pemohon yang sama?

[Whether a challenge to the constitutionality of s 3 of the Sedition Act 1948 [Act 15] made in civil proceedings is res judicata in view of a prior similar challenge in criminal proceedings by the same applicant.]

(3) Sama ada s 3(3) Akta Hasutan 1948 [Akta 15] bercanggah dengan Fasal 10 Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan oleh itu adalah tidak sah dan tidak mempunyai kesan undang-undang?

[Whether s 3(3) of the Sedition Act 1948 [Act 15] contravenes Art 10 of the Federal Constitution and is therefore invalid and of no effect in law.]"

[3] The background facts leading to the present appeal are these. On 7 February 2011, the respondent was charged in the Sessions Court, Shah Alam with an offence of publishing a seditious publication, an offence under s 4(1)(c) of Act 15. The charge reads as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 30 Disember 2010, di Pusat Khidmat Rakyat, 6/2, Jalan Anggerik Vanilla R 31/R, Kota Kemuning, 40460 Shah Alam di dalam negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah menerbitkan satu penerbitan menghasut di laman web srimuda.blogspot yang mempunyai alamat web http://srimuda. blogspot.com satu artikel bertajuk "Pandangan saya berasaskan Undang- Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Selangor 1959" seperti Lampiran "A" yang mengandungi ayat-ayat yang menghasut seperti yang digariskan; dan oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 4(1)(c) Akta Hasutan 1948 (Akta 15) yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 4(1) Akta yang sama."

[4] The words in Lampiran A in the aforesaid charge which were alleged to be seditious, and which were underlined, are as follows:

"Mengapa di peringkat persekutuan SPB Yang di-Pertuan Agong perlu bertindak mengikut nasihat YAB Perdana Menteri dalam perkara yang sec