JUDGMENT

Amarjeet Sihgh Serjit Singh J:

Introduction

[1] This is an originating summons wherein the plaintiff, Janice Tan Bee Yoke ("the plaintiff') sought a declaration that she is a citizen by operation of law under art 14(1)(b) read with s 1(a) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution or under art 14(1)(b) read with s 1(e) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution. The other reliefs sought are consequential reliefs, in the event, one of the declarations are granted.

[2] On 19 March 2025, I dismissed the originating summons with no order as to costs. This judgment contains the reasons for my decision.

[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 Federal Constitution.

The Facts

[4] The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff was born on 11 October 1996 at Sentosa Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Her biological parents are Tan Kok Man ("TKM"), a Malaysian citizen, and Sri Tampi ("ST"), an Indonesian citizen. TKM and ST were not legally married at the time of her birth. TKM raised the Plaintiff as a single father. ST has been uncontactable since the plaintiff was 3 years old.

[5] A birth certificate was issued (1st Birth Certificate) based on the information given by TKM. The 1st Birth Certificate stated the father's details as "TIDAK Di PEROLEHI" and Sri Tampi, the biological mother, as an Indonesian citizen. For reasons best known to TKM, he did not in the application for registration of birth state that he was the plaintiff's biological father.

[6] In 2004, pursuant to s 27(3) Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957, an amendment was done on the register of births based on an application which stated that TKM was the biological father of the plaintiff. The application was allowed and a second birth certificate was, as a consequence to the amendment to the register of births, issued in respect of the plaintiff (2nd Birth Certificate). The 2nd Birth Certificate stated the details of TKM as the biological father. The citizenship status was wrongly stated as "WARGANEGARA" as TKM and Sri Tampi were not married at the time the plaintiff was born.

[7] The National Registration Department vide letter dated 9 December 2008, informed TKM to make an application to amend the plaintiffs citizenship status because the biological parents are not married during the birth of the plaintiff. The amendment was made after TKM, in a statutory declaration, admitted that he was not married to Sri Tampi when the plaintiff was born. The fact that TKM and Sri Tampi were never married is admitted by the plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiffs citizenship status was stated as non-citizen in the 3rd birth certificate.

[8] The plaintiff had applied 4 times for citizenship under art 15A of the Federal Constitution in 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2015 but was unsuccessful. On 10 October 2023, she applied under art 19 of the Federal Constitution but was not qualified to do so. The plaintiff has now turned to this Court for a declaration that she is a citizen of Malaysia by operation of law under art 14(1)(b) read with ss 1(a) or (e) of the Second Schedule.

Citizenship By Operation Of Law

[9] 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 dictates of art 14(1)(b) read with any of the paragraphs of s 1 of Part II. There is no discretion on any person to determine whether an applicant is a citizen by operation of law. The article provides that only if all the conditions required are fulfilled, the person is a citizen. If the conditions are not fulfilled, the person is not a citizen. Thus, the failure to fulfil the conditions would result in the Court dismissing an application for citizenship by