Back
2025 MarsdenLR 2534
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SAYYID SHAH ABDULLAH – Appellant
Versus
KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-01(A)-691-12/2023]
The requirements for changing a name under the National Registration Regulations are stringent, necessitating the complete abandonment of the former name, with the Director General having no discretion to approve a non-compliant application.
Headnote:(A) National Registration Act 1959 - National Registration Regulations 1990 - Appeal against dismissal of Judicial Review for name change - The Court addressed the interpretation of reg 14 and whether the appellant fulfilled the necessary conditions for changing his name back to the original. The requirement to absolutely renounce the previous name was emphasized, alongside the principle that the Director General has no discretion if procedures are correctly followed. (Paras 38-66)
(B) The absence of express provision requiring reasons for the decision does not create a general duty to give reasons; it is assessed on a case-by-case basis depending on the nature of the decision. (Paras 69-80)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought judicial review after the 1st Respondent denied his application to revert his name on his identity card from Sayyid Shah bin Abdullah back to K. Praghadheeswara Raja a/l Kalandasamy. The application was denied based on non-compliance with regulations regarding name change.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the appellant did not satisfy the requirements for changing his name as stipulated by regulation 14.
Issues: Whether the appellant satisfied the prerequisites for changing his name back to the original name and whether there was a necessity for the Director General to provide reasons for the decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the regulation requires an applicant to completely abandon the original name and that the Director General had no discretion if the application was not compliant. The court also concluded that no reasons were needed for a straightforward decision where the prerequisites were clearly not met.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the appeal against the high court decision. (Para 1) |
| 2. factual background regarding the appellant's identity and name changes. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. arguments presented by the appellant related to name change regulations. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 4. respondents' counter-arguments regarding the appellant's application. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 5. court's detailed analysis of relevant regulations and the implications of name change. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68) |
| 6. court's reasoning on the duty to provide reasons for decisions. (Para 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78) |
| 7. court's final decision on the appeal dismissal. (Para 81) |
| 8. conclusion and costs order. (Para 82) |
(A) Introduction
[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur, which had on 20 October 2023 dismissed the Appellant's application for Judicial Review with costs for the following reliefs:
a) an order for Certiorari to quash the decision of the 1st Respondent dated 21 January 2021 in rejecting the Appellant's application to amend the name of Sayyid Shah bin Abdullah, ID No: 75042371-5087 (A33757824) to original name of the Appellant which is K. Praghadheeswara Raja a/l Kalandasamy, ID No: 750423-715087 (A33757824);
b) an order for Mandamus to compel the 1st Respondent to amend and register the name of Sayyid Shah bin Abdullah, ID No: 750423-71-5087 (A33757824)to the original name of the Appellant which is K. Praghadheeswara Raja a/l Kalandasamy (ID card No:750423-71-5087 (A33757824);
c) a Declaratory order that the decision of the 1st Respondent dated 21 January 2021 in dismissing the Appellant's application was invalid and void;
d) damages; and
e) any other reliefs that the Court deems fit and proper.
(B) Pertinent Background Facts
[2] The Appellant is a citizen of Malaysia who was born on 23 April 1975 in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.
[3] The Appellant's birth certificate was issued by the Office of the Assistant High Commissioner Malaysia in Madras under the name of K.Praghadheeswara Raja. His father's name was Kalandasamy.
[4] The Appellant was a Hindu from birth and professed the said religion at all material times.
[5] The 1st Respondent issued a Malaysian Registration Identity Card under the name of K. Praghadheeswara Raja a/l Kalandasamy (My Kad No: 750423-71-5087 (A33757824)).
[6] In 2005, the Appellant converted to Islam at Jabatan Agama Islam Negeri Sembilan, and he changed his name to Sayyid Shah bin Abdullah.
[7] On 4 October 2005, an application by the Appellant to change his name was allowed by the 1st Respondent under reg 14 of the National Registration Regulations 1990. Consequent to that, a new identity card was issued under the name of Sayyid Shah bin Abdullah, replacing the name of K. Praghadheeswara Raja a/l Kalandasamy.
[8] The Appellant successfully applied for and was given a new passport on 29 April 2015 under his new name of Sayyid Shah bin Abdullah, and he flew to India using this new passport on 23 December 2016.
[9] However, the Indian Immigration refused to allow the Appellant entry into India due to the fact that he had previously entered India using a Malaysian passport under the name of K. Praghadheeswara Raja a/l Kalandasamy. As a result, the Appellant was deported to Malaysia.
[10] Upon his return to Malaysia, the Appellant claimed that on 22 March 2016, upon his application for a passport under his original name, the Director General of Malaysian Immigration revoked the passport under the name of Sayyid Shah bin Abdullah and replaced it with a new passport issued under the name of K. Praghadheeswara Raja a/l Kalandasamy (No A35711811) for a duration of 5 years.
[11] The Appellant encountered difficulties w
