Syariah Courts possess contempt powers under specific statutory provisions, and civil courts cannot review their decisions when made within jurisdiction as per constitutional provisions.

Table of Content
1. facts surrounding the case and leave application. (Para 1 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 13)
2. interpretation of statutory provisions related to syariah court. (Para 2 , 4 , 14 , 40)
3. jurisdictional considerations regarding review powers. (Para 16 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 25)
4. understanding the legislation and powers of syariah courts. (Para 22 , 28 , 33)
5. final decision on maintaining syariah court autonomy. (Para 58 , 60)

Held, allowing the appellant’s appeal with no order as to costs and setting aside the decision of the High Court:

(1)The threshold for granting leave to commence judicial review was very low, and it was normally granted if the application was not frivolous and vexatious, and where the applicant had an arguable case. Despite that, it must be borne in mind that the impugned decision must first be amenable to judicial review (see paras 22 & 24).

(2)In respect of the second issue of law, the words ‘the constitution, organization, and procedure of Syariah Court’ as stated in item 1 of the State List ought to be interpreted liberally with the widest amplitude to include the power to punish contempt of itself, which was the ancillary and subsidiary matter to be fairly and reasonably comprehended in it. It was clear that item 1 of the State List itself did not directly grant contempt powers to the Syariah Court. Instead, it provided a legislative pathway for Parliament to enact laws that endowed the Syariah Court with these powers. This was exemplified by s 229 of Act 585, which served as a legislative instrument conferring the authority to manage contempt proceedings within the Syariah judicial system. Therefore, while the State List did not directly allocate these powers, it empowered Parliament to legislate them, ensuring that the Syariah Court possessed the necessary tools to uphold its mandate and preserve the sanctity of justice (see paras 38–40 & 59).

(3)In relation to the first issue of law, since item 1 of the State List allowed the Parliament to make laws for the power of contempt proceedings in the Syariah Court which in the present case was s 229 of Act 285, the impugned decisions by the Syariah Courts challenged in the present case were made within their jurisdictions which could not be reversed by the civil court. It must be borne in mind that the case heard by the Syariah Court could not be relitigated by the civil courts to reach a different decision. The inviolability of the Syariah Court’s jurisdiction was further enshrined in art 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution that unequivocally stated that civil courts, including the High Court, shall not have jurisdiction over matters within the purview of Syariah Courts. Therefore, the impugned decisions of the Syariah Courts to grant the leave order and notice to show cause should remained valid until it was set aside (see paras 46, 50, 59 & 61).

(4)With respect to the third issue of law, the notice to show cause issued by the Syariah High Court was merely the first procedural step of the commencement of contempt proceedings and was not a final decision that disposed of the contempt proceedings, as such, it was not a final decision within the ambit of O 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 (‘the ROC ’). The respondent could not be said to be adversely affected in the absence of a decision that affected her legal right. The court opined that the respondent’s judicial review application was premature as it attempted to restrain the Syariah High Court from performing its judicial duty under s 229 of Act 585. Permitting leave for judicial review at this stage would not only hinder the Syariah Court from performing its judicial duty under the law, but it would also allow the respondent to fragment the Syariah Court’s decision-making process which should not be allowed for it would impair the efficient administration of public authorities. Further, the respondent must not be allowed to short-circuit the Syariah Court’s judicial decision-making process and procedure p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document