SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 6328

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
GLORYA KUPPA – Appellant
Versus
KETUA PENGARAH PENDAFTARAN NEGARA & ORS – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-24-76-10/2023]



Petitioner Advocates:Mohd Haijan Omar,Asyraf Abu Bakar Hamzah ,Respondent Advocate: Safiyyah Omar

Citizenship by operation of law requires fulfillment of biological parents' citizenship at birth; adoptive parents cannot confer citizenship under the Federal Constitution.

Headnote:(A) Federal Constitution - Article 14(1)(b) - Second Schedule - Citizenship by operation of law - Plaintiff, an adopted child, sought declaration of citizenship based on the Federal Constitution and the status of adoptive parents - Court found that citizenship provisions must be fulfilled based on biological parents' citizenship at birth - Adoption does not confer citizenship under the Constitution - Basic criteria not met as plaintiff was not abandoned as a newborn - Applications for registration of citizenship by adoptive parents were previously rejected. (Paras 8-11, 18-21, 33-40)

(B) Burden of Proof - It is upon the applicant to prove eligibility for citizenship by operation of law; mere claims of citizenship do not suffice - Court upheld that the status of biological parents is paramount for citizenship qualification. (Paras 24-32)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a 27-year-old, was adopted at age 12 by Malaysian citizens. Citizenship applications filed by the adoptive parents were denied. The plaintiff claims citizenship based on provisions of the Federal Constitution related to birth and adoption. (Paras 1-4, 6)

Findings of Court:
Citizenship cannot be conferred based on adoptive parents' status; requirements of jus soli and jus sanguinis must be met. The court noted the criteria involving biological parents' citizenship are essential and adoption doesn't replace these requirements. (Paras 33-40)

Issues: Whether the plaintiff qualifies for Malaysian citizenship by virtue of adoption and whether the statutory requirements of citizenship by operation of law have been satisfied. (Paras 8-9, 21)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that citizenship provisions are not discretionary and require fulfillment of both jus soli and jus sanguinis conditions; reject applications when the basic eligibility criteria are unmet. (Paras 18-21, 33-40)

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. plaintiff seeks citizenship declaration under federal constitution. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. citizenship is a fundamental right by operation of law. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12)
3. interpretation of 'abandonment' supports citizenship claim. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 21 , 22)
4. basic facts must be established for presumption to apply. (Para 18 , 20)
5. burden of proof lies with the applicant regarding citizenship. (Para 24 , 36)
6. adoption does not confer citizenship under current law. (Para 33 , 39)
Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh J:

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff is 27 years old. On 7 April 2025,1 dismissed her application for citizenship by operation of law brought in this originating summons. The main reliefs sought were framed as follows:

(a) A declaration that the plaintiff is a citizen pursuant to art 14(1)(b) read with s 1(a) of Part II of the Second Schedule and Section 1 9B of Part III of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitutionp.

(b) A declaration that the plaintiff is a citizen pursuant to art 14(1)(b) read with ss 1(e) and 2(3) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution .

(c) In the alternative to (a) above, a declaration that the plaintiff is a citizen of pursuant to art 14(1)(b) read with s 1(a) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution by virtue of the citizenship status of her adopted parents, Selvarani a/p Muthiah and Kuppa a/I Anthoney.

[2] The other reliefs sought are consequential, in the event one of the above reliefs are granted, namely, to issue a birth certificate stating that the plaintiff is a citizen of Malaysia and issuing her with a Malaysian identity card.

[3] For the sake of brevity, unless otherwise stated, all references in this judgment to "Articles" and "Second Schedule" are to that of the Federal Constitution . Similarly, and unless otherwise stated, any references to Part II or Part III are to that of the Second Schedule of the .

The Background

[4] The facts are not in dispute. Subsequently, she was adopted by a married couple, Selvarani a/p Muthiah and Kuppa a/I Anthoney, both of whom are citizens of Malaysia ("the couple"). A late application for registration of birth of the plaintiff was made on 20 June 2008, ie, when the plaintiff was 12 years old. The application for registration was approved on 11 May 2009.

[5] Based on the information given to register the birth, the name of the plaintiff was given as Glorya, and her birth date as 1 January 1997. On 1 June 2009, a birth certificate ("the 1st Birth Certificate") was issued by the Registrar General of Births and Deaths ("the Registrar General") at the National Registration Department, District of Temerloh, Pahang. The information of her biological parents was stated as "no information," and her citizenship status as "not determined".

[6] On 23 July 2012, the couple formally adopted the plaintiff under the Adoption Act 1952. The couple then made an application to the Registrar General to register the fact of adoption. On 3 April 2012, the fact of adoption was registered at the National Registration Department at Putrajaya. The Registrar General, based on the fact of adoption, issued a new birth certificate ("the 2nd Birth Certificate"). In view of the adoption, the 2nd Birth Certificate stated the particulars of the couple as the parents of the plaintiff and the status of citizenship as "non-citizen".

[7] Thereafter, the adopted father, Kuppa a/I Anthoney, made two applications to the Government of Malaysia under art 15A for registration of citizenship. Both applications were rejected on 20 December 2012 and 10 March 2014, respectively. The third application made by the adopted mother, Selvarani a/p Muthiah, was also rejected on 25 April 2018. Hence, this application by the plaintiff in her own capacity.

Citizenship By Operation Of Law

[8] Citizenship by operation of law has been declared by the Federal Court as a fundamental right and all related bodies are bound by to comply with the d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top