The Syariah Courts possess powers to manage contempt proceedings, supported by legislative provisions, while the High Court lacks jurisdiction to review decisions from the Syariah Courts as per Federal Constitution Article 121(1A).

Case Summary

This was an appeal by Peguam Negara Malaysia (‘the appellant’) against the High Court’s decision in allowing the application by Maria Chin bt Abdullah (‘the respondent’) for leave for judicial review to challenge the decision of the Syariah Court in granting leave to one SM Faisal pursuant to s 229 of the Syariah Court Civil Procedure (Federal Territories) Act 1998 (‘Act 585’) to commence contempt proceedings against the respondent at the Syariah Court in relation to publication of an article by the respondent (‘the leave order’), and the notice to show cause to the respondent. The main issues of law to be determined by the court in the present appeal were: (a) whether the High Court had jurisdiction to review the decision of the Syariah Court (‘the first issue of law’); (b) whether item 1 of the State List (as provided under the Ninth Schedule to the Federal Constitution ) vested the Syariah Court with powers of contempt proceedings (‘the second issue of law’); and (c) whether the leave application for judicial review was premature as notice to show cause issued by the Syariah Court was not a ‘decision’ amenable to judicial review (‘the third issue of law’).

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