The revocation of citizenship must comply with legal provisions; errors in law by authorities can be challenged through judicial review.

[1] This is the applicants' judicial review application against the decision of the 1st respondent on 27 November 2017 to revoke the 2nd applicant's birth certificate and issuing an amended birth certificate which has the effect of revoking the 2nd applicant's Malaysian citizenship.

[2] The reliefs sought by the applicants, among others are:

(i) an order of certiorari to quash the said decision.

(ii) a declaration that the 2nd applicant is a citizen by operation of law under art 14(1)(b) of Federal Constitution .

(iii) an order of mandamus instructing the 1st respondent to reinstate the 2nd applicant's original birth certificate and to issue a Mykad to the 2nd applicant within 14 days from the date of the Court's Order.

The Salient Facts

[3] Based on the affidavits and documentary evidence before this Court, the material established facts are the following:

(i) The 1st applicant is a citizen of Malaysia, born in Sg. Pelek, New Village, Selangor on 10 December 1954.

(ii) The 1st applicant is the biological father of the 2nd respondent who was born in Malaysia on 29 May 2005. The biological mother of the 2nd respondent is an Indonesian citizen known as Leena.

(iii) The marriage of the 1st applicant and Leena was not registered in Malaysia.

(iv) The birth of the 2nd applicant was registered at the National Registration Department by both the 1st applicant and Leena where a birth certificate No BN72109, serial No F923875 was issued on 29 June 2005. The citizenship of the 2nd applicant in the birth certificate is Malaysian and the father is the 1st applicant. In this birth certificate it also states that the mother is Leena an Indonesian citizen.

(v) A MyKid card was also issued by the Registration Department in the 2nd applicant's name.

(vi) The 1st applicant in his affidavit states that he and Leena was married in Surabaya, Indonesia and thereafter stayed in Malaysia. However, after the birth of the 2nd applicant and having registered the said birth, Leena went back to Indonesia leaving both the 1st and 2nd applicant. The 1st applicant then raise the 2nd applicant and provides her education until now.

(vii) When the 2nd applicant attained the age of 12, the applicants went to the National Registration Department to apply for the 2nd applicant's 'MyKad'. The 1st applicant was then asked to fillup and signed certain forms which the 1st applicant thought they were in relation to the application for 'MyKad'. It turn out later that the forms were for the alteration of information in the 2nd applicant's birth certificate.

(viii) In any event, the 2nd applicant's application for 'MyKad' was rejected by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has also revoked the 2nd applicant's birth certificate and issued an amended birth certificate pursuant to s 27(3) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 .

(ix) In this new birth certificate, the amendments made are as follows:

(a) the 2nd applicant is not Malaysian citizen.

(b) the 2nd applicant's race has been amended from "Cina" to "Indonesia".

(c) the 1st applicant's is not stated as the father of the 2nd applicant and in the relevant column, it only states "maklumat tidak diperolehi".

(x) Dissatisfied with the decision of the 1st respondent, the applicants filed this judicial review application.

The Applicants' Grounds For The Judicial Review Application

[4] Based on the statement filed pursuant to O 53 r 3(2), Rules of 2012 and submission made by counsel for the applicants, the grounds for this judicial review application can be summarized as follows:

(i) The 1st respondent committed an error of law in revoking the 2nd applicant's original birth certificate and issuing the amended birth certificate pursuant to s 27(3) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 .

(ii) The removal of status of citizenship of the 2nd applicant by the 1st respondent was made wi