JUDGMENT

Raja Azlan Shah FJ:

It is clear that the question at issue is fraught with political controversy. No doubt the appellant and other persons hold strong views one way or the other on the justice of the impugned Act. I should add that right now no feature of our system of government has caused so much discussion, received so much criticism, and been so frequently misunderstood, than the duties assigned to the courts and the functions which they discharge in guarding the Constitution. For that reason and also because it is rarely that this court is faced with a constitutional question of this kind it is desirable at the outset to make clear the functions of the courts.

The question whether the impugned Act is "harsh and unjust" is a question of policy to be debated and decided by Parliament, and therefore not meet for judicial determination. To sustain it would cut very deeply into the very being of Parliament. Our courts ought not to enter this political thicket, even in such a worthwhile cause as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, for as was said by Lord Macnaghten in Vacher & Sons Ltd. v. London Society of Compositors [1913] AC 107, 118.

Some people may think the policy of the Act unwise and even dangerous to the community. Some may think it at variance with principles which have long been held sacred. But a judicial tribunal has nothing to do with the policy of any Act which it may be called upon to interpret. That may be a matter for private judgment. The duty of the court, and its only duty, is to expound the language of the Act in accordance with the settled rules of construction. It is, I apprehend, as unwise as it is unprofitable to cavil at the policy of an Act of Parliament, or to pass a covert censure on the Legislature.

It is the province of the courts to expound the law and "the law must be taken to be as laid down by the courts, however much their decisions may be criticised by writers of such great distinction" - per Roskill LJ in Henry v. Geopresco International Ltd. [1975] 2 All ER 702, 718. Those who find fault with the wisdom or expediency of the impugned Act, and with vexatious interference of fundamental rights, normally must address themselves to the legislature. and not the courts; they have their remedy at the ballot box.

The Constitution is not a mere collection of pious platitudes. It is the supreme law of the land embodying three basic concepts: One of them is that the individual has certain fundamental rights upon which not even the power of the State may encroach. The second is the distribution of sovereign power between the States and the Federation, that the 13 States shall exercise sovereign power in local matters and the nation in matters affecting the country at large. The third is that no single man or body shall exercise complete sovereign power, but that it shall be distributed among the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government, compendiously expressed in modern terms that we are a government of laws, not of men.

Clause (4) of Article 5 of the Constitution prescribes that a person arrested must be taken before a magistrate within 24 hours so that an independent authority exercising judicial powers may without delay apply its mind to his case. This safeguard is to a large extent covered by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code but its incorporation in the Constitution is deemed essential for assuring the minorities that their rights would be constitutionally guaranteed and that they shall not entertain any apprehension of the alleged despotism and arbitrariness of the majority and legislative omnipotence. This safeguard equally applies to any person arrested under the Restricted Residence Enactment (Cap. 39) (see Assa Singh V. Mentri Besar, Johore "but evidently difficulties have arisen in the practical application of the enactment and hence the need for the amendment." (see [1976] 2 MLJ xcii).

The question is how safe are the provisi