JUDGMENT

Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh J:

Introduction

[1] On 3 May 2024 a restriction order was issued by the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs ("the Minister") under subsection 6(3) to the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ("the Act") restricting the applicant to Mukim Selising, Jajahan Pasir Puteh, Kelantan for a period of two years ("the restriction order"). The restriction order came with certain conditions.

[2] On 12 August 2024, the applicant applied for and was granted leave to commence judicial review proceedings, in the main, for an order of certiorari to quash the restriction order and a claim for general and exemplary damages.

[3] On 18 June 2025, I dismissed the application. This judgment contains the reasons for my decision.

Background

[4] The facts reveal that the applicant was arrested under s 3(1) of the Act by an Inspector of Police on 11 March 2024. On 12 March 2024, the applicant was detained beyond 24 hours pursuant to s 3(2)(a) of the Act. On 13 March 2024, he was further detained beyond 48 hours under s 3(2)(b) of the Act. The applicant was then detained beyond 14 days pursuant to s 3(2)(c) of the Act. On 24 March, the arrest and detention were reported to the Minister.

[5] On 27 March 2024, a copy of the complete report of police investigations made under s 4 of the Act was forwarded to the Inquiry Officer and the Minister under s 3(3) of the Act. On 8 April 2024, a complete report of the Inquiry Officer made pursuant to s 5 of the Act was forwarded to the Minister. On 3 May 2024, the Minister, being satisfied that it was unnecessary that the applicant be subjected to a detention order but was necessary that control and supervision should be exercised, made the restriction order under s 6(3) of the Act with restrictions and conditions.

[6] The restriction order ordered the applicant to reside within the boundaries of Mukim Selising in Pasir Puteh, Kelantan, for a period of 2 years with restrictions and conditions attached to the restriction order.

Issues To Be Tried

[7] In his Written Submissions, the applicant narrowed the issues to only 2 grounds of challenge as follows:

(1) The restriction order was issued in excess of the power under s 6(3) of the Act, as the condition stipulated in paragraph (i) is contrary to the available conditions that could be imposed on a person subject to a restriction order.

(2) The restriction order was not served on the applicant in accordance with the date and time stipulated in the restriction order.

Analysis And Decision

[8] On the law, the applicant referred to preventive detention cases relating to the remedy of habeas corpus. In the present case, we are dealing with a restriction order, but most importantly, the remedy of certiorari in a judicial review proceeding. Therefore, the principles relating to the burden of proof in habeas corpus cases do not apply the remedy of certiorari In judicial review proceedings, the High Court exercises supervisory power to ensure that a public authority or body has when carrying out its functions has exercised its powers or duties lawfully and does not exceed or abuse its power. Therefore, the principles in the authorities referred to in the Written Submission, such as SK Tangakaliswaran Krishnan v. Menteri Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Ors; [2009] 1 MLJ 149; [2009] 6 CLJ 705; Poh Chin Kay v. Menteri Hal Ehwal 1Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Anor And Other Appeals; [1990] 2 MLJ 297; Muhammad Jailani Kasim v. Timbalan Menteri Keselamatan Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors; [2006] 6 MLJ 403; [2006] 4 CLJ 687; [2006] 5 AMR 689 and the others that were cited are not applicable to the remedy of judicial review.

[9] Having said that, the narrowed grounds certainly falls within the established grounds of challenge in judicial review proceedings. The first ground issue is a challenge premised on illegality, while the second ground is a challenge premised on procedural impropriety, (see R Rama Chandran v. Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor; [1996] 1 ML