Gopal Sri Ram JCA (delivering judgment of the court):

[1]On 15 February 1998, the appellant and twelve others met to form the Parti Sosialis Malaysia ('PSM'). They formed a committee of seven. An application was then made to the Registrar of Societies ('ROS') to register themselves as a political society. The ROS declined to grant registration at national level. But he was prepared to grant registration in the State of Selangor. Dissatisfied with the result the appellant appealed to the respondent, the Minister for Home Affairs. The appeal was dismissed. I will deal with the ROS' reasons and those of the Minister in a moment. Judicial review was sought and refused. The appellant now appeals to us.

[2]When the appeal came on for hearing, we called on learned senior federal counsel to argue why the appeal should not be allowed and the appropriate relief be granted. This is in accordance with the usual practice in judicial review cases whenever the cause papers reveal a prima facie infringement of a right, in particular, a constitutionally guaranteed right: in this case the freedom of association. It is then for the State (in this case the Minister) to justify what was done or omitted to be done. It is only after such justification is established does the burden shift to the ordinary citizen to establish his or her case. Were it otherwise, the balance of justice would forever be weighted against the citizen and in favour of the Executive. Thatsimply cannot be right as a matter of pure fairness of court procedure.

[3]I now come to the reasons given by the ROS. According to the evidence made available, the ROS was not prepared to grant registration at the national level because PSM's committee did not comprise of members from at least seven of the States of Malaysia. Most of them had addresses in Selangor. It is the ROS' policy not to grant national level registration unless there is representation from at least seven of the States of Malaysia in the committee of a political society. The Minister rejected the appeal on two grounds. First, that advanced by the ROS. Second, because the registration was not in the interest of national security based on information made available by the police to the Minister. Since the decision of the ROS had telescoped into the Minister's decision, it is the latter that has been properly made the subject of judicial review attack.

[4]As I understand the appellant's case it is simple enough. It is that his fundamental right to form the PSM had been infringed by the ROS and the Minister. But this simple argument was put forward in such a convoluted form by the appellant's counsel that I must confess my difficulty initially in understanding what it was that learned counsel was really getting at. So, to appreciate the appellant's case it is necessary to consider the relevant constitutional provisions. Article 10(1)(c) guarantees to all citizens the right to form associations. Article 10(2)(c) empowers Parliament by law to impose such restrictions on the right conferred by art 10(1)(c) 'as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order or morality'.

[5]It is to be noted that art 10(2)(c) uses the formula 'such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient'. Does this mean that Parliament is free to impose any restriction however unreasonable that restriction may be? In Nordin bin Salleh v Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan Nordin bin Salleh is the product of a literal reading of art 10(1)(c). But it must be said in fairness to that learned judge that the relevant authorities on constitutional interpretation may not have been referred to him during argument. The proper approach to the interpretation of our Federal Constitution is now too well settled to be the subject of argument or doubt. It is to be found in the joint dissent of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead and Lord Hope of Craighead in the Privy Council case of Prince Pinder v The Queen

It sho