Back
FEDERAL COURT (PUTRAJAYA)
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT, CJ, ROHANA YUSUF PCA, J, NALLINI PATHMANATHAN, J, ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI, J, HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM, J, MARY LIM THIAM SUAN, J, HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL, FCJJ
Maria Chin Abdullah – Appellant
Versus
Ketua Pengarah Imigresen & Anor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. right to travel is a privilege, not a fundamental liberty. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. the necessity of addressing legal questions about travel bans. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. the court's powers of review are limited by parliamentary legislation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. constitutional supremacy over parliamentary supremacy. (Para 18 , 22 , 26 , 30) |
| 5. judiciary's role as guardian of the constitution and its fundamental principles. (Para 37 , 39 , 41) |
| 6. actions without justification infringe upon rights. (Para 102 , 103 , 104) |
| 7. natural justice principle applies to limits on fundamental rights. (Para 186 , 190) |
| 8. the importance of providing remedies for rights infringed. (Para 202) |
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1]For the full comprehension of the people of this nation, the net effect of the judgment of the majority of this Court is that:
a)In this day and age, namely the 21st century, the right to travel outside of Malaysia is not a fundamental liberty under art 5 of the Federal Constitution, even if you have a valid passport – it is only a privilege;
b)A person can be prohibited from travelling outside of Malaysia by the Director-General of Immigration by a law wh
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
