Abang Iskandar JCA (delivering judgment of the court):

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

[1]In March 2001, Pang Wee See and Yee Oii Pah (‘the applicants’) were informed by a relative that there was a newborn baby (‘the child’) at Taj Hospital, Jalan Ipoh, Kuala Lumpur for adoption. The applicants decided to adopt the child as they did not have any children of their own.

[2]On 23 March 2001, the applicants registered the birth of the child at National Registration Department (‘NRD’) with the applicants’ names as the biological parents of the child (‘first birth certificate’).

[3]On 29 August 2013, the second applicant (Yee Oii Pah) together with the child went to NRD to apply for a MyKad for the child. The second applicant was interviewed by Encik Mohd Afizul bin Yajid, an officer from the NRD, in respect of the accuracy of the applicants’ names on the child’s first birth certificate. The second applicant disclosed to Encik Mohd Afizul that the child was not formally adopted. Encik Mohd Afizul explained the necessary steps needed to be taken for the child to be formally adopted, including amending certain particulars of the first birth certificate.

[4]On 23 January 2014, the NRD reissued the child’s birth certificate (‘second birth certificate’) which recorded the following information:

(a)the child’s biological parents are recorded as ‘information not available’; and

(b)the child is registered as having been born on 8 March 2011 in Taj Hospital Jalan Ipoh, Kuala Lumpur.

[5]The applicants then made an application to the Kuala Lumpur High Court vide an originating summons dated 25 February 2014 to adopt the child which was later duly granted by the High Court on 19 September 2014. In the order, the High Court had confirmed that the child was born in Malaysia on 8 March 2001 at Taj Hospital, Jalan Ipoh, Kuala Lumpur. Based on the court order, the applicants applied to the NRD for a new birth certificate pursuant to s 25Adoption Act 1952

[6]On 13 February 2015, the NRD issued a new birth certificate for the child (‘current birth certificate’). However the current birth certificate registered the child as not a citizen of Malaysia.

[7]Upon enquiry by the applicants on the issue of citizenship of the child, NRD office informed the applicants that the NRD would not register the child as a citizen of Malaysia based on the adoption order because the NRD had no data on the biological parents of the child. The child was hence rendered stateless.

[8]Subsequently, on 8 April 2015, the applicants filed an application for leave for judicial review (‘JR’) to quash the decision of the respondent on the citizenship matter of the child. They had also prayed for an order of mandamus to compel that respondent to register the child as a citizen of Malaysia. The leave was granted on 9 July 2015.

[9]The applicants then filed the application for JR which prayed for the following reliefs:

(a)a declaration that Pang Cheng Chuen (‘PCC’), a child is a citizen of Malaysia by operation of law by virtue of his birth within the Federation of Malaysia pursuant to art 14(1)(b), Part II, s 1s (3) of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution;

(b)a declaration the child is a citizen of Malaysia by operation of law by virtue of his lawful adoption by the applicants pursuant to the order for adoption dated 19 September 2014 made by the Kuala Lumpur High Court in Adoption No 34–3–02 of 2014 read with ss 925AAdoption Act 1952art 14(1)(b) and Part II s 1 para (a) of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution;

(c)an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the respondent on 13 February 2015 to issue the birth certificate of the child (Series No 000957 XA) dated 27 February 2014 and signed by the respondent which registered the child as a non-citizen and not a citizen of Malaysia;

(d)an order of mandamus directing the respondent to reissue the birth certificate of the child to register the child as a citizen of Malaysia;

(e)costs; and

(f)such further orders and/or directions as may b