The court upheld the importance of educational rights for disabled children, affirming that financial constraints should not prevent access to education.

JUDGMENT Low Hop Bing J:

Application

The concern for the education of our younger generation strikes at the very core of our hearts, especially in the promotion of a caring and loving society. This concern is manifested in the proceedings which were unfolded in this court. Before me is the plaintiffs' application in encl. (2) for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants and each of them whether by themselves or their servants or agents from excluding, preventing, precluding or hindering the 1st plaintiff from attending and commencing middle school at the Ampang campus of the defendant school when the school commences on 12 August 1999.

After the filing of encl. (2), Dato' Dr. Cyrus Das, the learned lead counsel for the plaintiffs, applied for the grant of an ad interim injunction. After perusing the application in encl. (2) and all the affidavits filed herein, I granted the ad interim injunction, on the basis of the decision of the Court in India ie, Jagjit Singh Khanna v. Dr Rakhal Das Mullick & Another AIR [1988] Calcutta 95 where a panel of two judges presided. A.M. Bhattacharjee, J (in delivering the judgment of the court) explained the two stages of a temporary injunction in the following words:

A temporary injunction may as it very often does, consist of two stages, one granted without finally disposing of the application for injunction to operate immediately till the disposal of the said application and the other granted while finally disposing of the main application to endure generally till the disposal of the suit and while the former is generally classed as ad interim injunction, the latter is generally called temporary injunction.

Neither on principle nor on authority we find any bar to the Courts granting ad interim injunction till the disposal of the application for the temporary injunction.

Applying the principle enunciated in the above case, I am of the view that it is within the jurisdiction of our superior courts to grant ad interim injunction pending the disposal of an application for interlocutory injunction, such as encl. (2) in the instant case. This view is in line with the powers of the High Court under s. 25 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and the additional powers under para. 6 of the schedule to the same Act which include the power to grant injunction in any manner whatsoever.

Facts Of The Case

From the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties herein, the facts and circumstances for the purposes of the application in encl. (2) may be presented in this way:

Jakob, the 1st plaintiff, suffers from a mild form of spastic dipelgia that only affects his motor movements. It is called moderate spastic dipelgia.

He is intellectually normal with a mental development which is commensurate to his chronological age.

Jakob uses a wheel chair to move about and a walking frame if he intends to walk by himself.

By grade 5 in elementary school, Jakob had become independent in five essential areas viz:

(a) movement around the school;

(b) using the lift by himself;

(c) independence in the cafeteria;

(d) to attend class on time; and

(e) going to toilet independently.

The defendant school is one school with two campuses viz the Melawati campus for elementary school children and Ampang campus for middle school and college level students.

The Ampang campus is sufficiently disabled-friendly like the Melawati campus in three essentials:

(a) existence of ramps;

(b) elevator to all levels; and

(c) washroom for disabled persons.

Jakob's parents, the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs, are both teachers in the defendant school. The father teaches at the Ampang campus and the mother at the Melawati campus.

The defendant school provides American curriculum education. It receives an annual grant from the United States Government.

American children including Jakob constitute the highest percentage of student enrolment each year.

There was no prior intimation that Jakob would not