Chang Min Tat J:

The plaintiff, a Member of Parliament, applies by way of an Originating Summons for various determinations and declarations arising from his conviction for sedition and a fine of $2,000 in the High Court on 13 January 1975.

The conviction and fine imposed would appear to bring him within the scope of Art. 48 of the Federal Constitution. This Article provides that -

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Article, a person is disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament if -

....

(e)he has been convicted of an offence by a Court of law in the Federation ... and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or to a fine of not less than two thousand dollars and has not received a free pardon.

Clause 3 of this Article provides, in its relevant parts, that -

(3) The disqualification of a person under... paragraph (e) of c (1) may be removed by the Yang Dipertuan Agung and shall, if not so removed, cease at the end of the period of five years beginning with the date ... on which the person convicted as mentioned in the said para (e) was released from custody or the date on which the fine mentioned in the said para (e) was imposed on such person. ...

At least, one Member of Parliament thought so. He, Datuk Mohamed Rahmat, who is also the Deputy Minister of Co-ordination of Public Corporations on 31 October 1975, introduced in the Dewan Ra'ayat a motion that the question whether by reason of the conviction and sentence the plaintiff had become disqualified for membership of the house be referred to the Committee of Privileges and that the Committee be instructed to report to the House.

The motion was passed on 4 November 1975, and the matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges of the Dewan Ra'ayat. I understand that to date, the Committee of Privileges has not reported to the House. The plaintiff, probably not without reason, believes and fears that the process to disqualify him has started and therefore applies for certain declarations all designed to delay, at least for the time being, any action by the Dewan Ra'ayat, to such a purpose.

The plaintiff therefore prays for the following declarations:

(1)that no question under Art. 53 of the Federal Constitution as to the plaintiff's disqualification for membership of the Dewan Ra'ayat has arisen by the plaintiff's mere conviction and fine of $2,000 in default six months' imprisonment on 13 January 1975, (vide Selangor Criminal Trial No. 4 of 1974) on a charge under s. 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act (Revised 1969);

(2)that the plaintiff has a constitutional right to exhaust his legal right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and thereafter, if unsuccessful, to apply to His Majesty the Yang Dipertuan Agung for a free pardon before any question as to his disqualification can arise under Art. 53 of the Federal Constitution:

(3)that the Dewan Ra'ayat can only take a decision on the plaintiff's disqualification after he has exhausted his legal right to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and has thereafter unsuccessfully exercised his right to apply to His Majesty the Yang Dipertuan Agung for a free pardon;

(4)that the plaintiff's pending appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has rendered the matter sub judice;

(5)that under Art. 53 of the Federal Constitution it is the Dewan Ra'ayat alone and no other authority or body which can go into the question relating to the plaintiff's disqualification as a member of the Dewan Ra'ayat.

The defendant to this summons is the Government of Malaysia.

I had on a previous occasion commented on the wrong use of the form of an Originating Summons for seeking declaratory orders of such a nature. On this occasion, though the submissions did not take this turn, it seems to me in the final analysis that the proper decision involves the proper and reasonable construction of certain Articles of the Federal Constitution and the form