Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for STEPHANIE JEAN YII & ORS vs MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS...

STEPHANIE JEAN YII & ORS vs MENTERI KEMENTERIAN PEMBANGUNAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN & ORS - 2025 MarsdenLR 1041 : The court found that the exemptions granted under the Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) Act 2020, specifically Sections 35 and 38C, were lawful and did not constitute illegality or breach of constitutional rights, including Article 13 of the Federal Constitution. The court explicitly held that there was no breach of constitutional rights or principles of natural justice, and that the decisions were justified under the Act given the circumstances of the pandemic. The application for judicial review was dismissed, confirming the legality of the orders made under the Act.Checking relevance for TAN HOO ENG vs CIMB BANK BERHAD & ORS...

TAN HOO ENG vs CIMB BANK BERHAD & ORS - 2024 MarsdenLR 4235 : The court held that the actions of a private law firm (Shearn) in advising a bank (CIMB) on compliance with Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA) orders did not constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of property rights under Article 13 of the Federal Constitution. The court emphasized that constitutional law applies only to violations by the legislature, executive, or their agencies, and not to actions by private entities acting in a private capacity. Therefore, even if the legal advice provided by Shearn was erroneous, it did not amount to a breach of constitutional rights, as Shearn did not exercise state power. This directly addresses the query regarding illegality and orders made in breach of the Constitution by affirming that private legal advice, even if incorrect, does not violate constitutional protections.Checking relevance for TAN HOO ENG vs CIMB BANK BERHAD & ORS...

TAN HOO ENG vs CIMB BANK BERHAD & ORS - 2024 MarsdenLR 2294 : The court explicitly addressed the issue of whether actions taken by CIMB Bank and its legal advisor, Shearn, constituted an illegal or unconstitutional deprivation of property rights under Article 13 of the Federal Constitution. The court ruled that even if Shearn''''s interpretation of the AMLATFA orders was erroneous, this could not amount to an unconstitutional deprivation of property rights because Shearn acted in a private capacity as a law firm and did not exercise state power. Constitutional law only applies to violations by the legislature, executive, or their agencies, not private entities. Therefore, the actions in question did not breach the Constitution.Checking relevance for TAN HOO ENG vs CIMB BANK BERHAD & ORS...

TAN HOO ENG vs CIMB BANK BERHAD & ORS - 2024 MarsdenLR 2294 : The court held that even if legal advice provided by a private law firm (Shearn) regarding the interpretation of AMLATFA orders was erroneous, such error did not constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of property rights under Article 13 of the Federal Constitution. This is because constitutional law only applies to violations by the legislature, executive, or their agencies, not by private entities acting in a private capacity. Since Shearn acted as a private law firm advising a bank, it did not exercise state power, and thus its actions could not be considered a breach of constitutional rights.Checking relevance for TAN HOO ENG vs CIMB BANK BERHAD & ORS...

TAN HOO ENG vs CIMB BANK BERHAD & ORS - 2024 MarsdenLR 2294 : The court held that the actions of a private law firm (Shearn) in advising a bank on compliance with AMLATFA orders did not constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of property rights under Article 13 of the Federal Constitution, as constitutional law only applies to violations by the legislature, executive, or their agencies, not private entities acting in a private capacity. The court further found that Shearn''''s advice, even if erroneous, did not amount to a breach of constitutional rights because it did not involve state power or encroachment into the executive''''s domain.

Illegality and Orders Made in Breach of the Constitution

• Illegality in Administrative and Judicial Orders Orders or decisions that breach constitutional provisions, natural justice, or statutory rules are deemed illegal. For instance, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) has not acted illegally or irrationally when making decisions within its jurisdiction, but orders made outside lawful authority are invalid. Similarly, government orders that violate constitutional principles or are made without proper legal basis are subject to nullification. Basnayaka Mudiyanselage Madduma Bandara vs Justice N.E. Dissanayake Chairman - Court Of Appeal, Dalmender Singh vs State of U.P. AND 2 OTHERS - Allahabad, BAR MALAYSIA vs PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA & ANOR - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur, R.Sethumadhavan vs The Government of Tamilnadu - Madras

• Limits of Judicial Review and Procedural Irregularities Courts are limited to reviewing acts of illegality rather than mere procedural irregularities within legislative assemblies or administrative procedures. For example, procedural breaches within legislatures, such as not following standing orders, are generally not grounds for judicial interference unless they amount to substantive illegality. The scope of judicial review is confined to acts that violate constitutional or legal principles, not procedural missteps alone. The Secretary vs P.Sivakumar - Madras, The Secretary vs P.Sivakumar - Madras, INDDEL0000001172

• Illegality in Executive Orders and Breach of Constitutional Principles Executive orders that lack enforceable legal guidelines or are arbitrary violate constitutional protections, such as Article 14 (Right to Equality). Orders made in breach of constitutional provisions or without adherence to legal standards can be struck down. Orders that breach fundamental rights or are made without jurisdiction are null and void. MADURAI VEERAN vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE - 2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 12324, Dalmender Singh vs State of U.P. AND 2 OTHERS - Allahabad, NAVINBHAI GANGARAM AGRAWAL V/s REENA SANJAYBHAI BHATT - Gujarat

• High Court and Tribunal Orders: Scope and Limitations High Courts cannot arbitrarily interfere with tribunal or lower court orders unless there is a clear violation of constitutional principles or illegalities. Such interference is limited by constitutional safeguards and the doctrine of the basic structure. Orders tainted with illegality, such as those made without jurisdiction, are subject to judicial review and can be set aside. NAVINBHAI GANGARAM AGRAWAL V/s REENA SANJAYBHAI BHATT - Gujarat

• Illegality in Land Acquisition and Administrative Actions Government orders or actions that violate constitutional principles, such as equality under Article 14, or are made in violation of judicial pronouncements, are invalid. Orders based on illegalities or passed in violation of constitutional mandates cannot serve as precedents and may be struck down. R.Sethumadhavan vs The Government of Tamilnadu - Madras

• Legal Principles for Revisions and Review Under Article 145 of the Constitution, courts have the power to call for records and examine cases for fatal illegality, such as orders made without proper legal basis or in contravention of statutory procedures. Orders made in breach of procedural requirements, such as not specifying a time frame, are invalid and can be set aside. Nandani Sellahewage of Madamewatte vs Officer-in-Charge Police Station Gandara - Court Of Appeal

Analysis and Conclusion

Orders made in breach of constitutional provisions, natural justice, or statutory rules are inherently illegal and subject to judicial scrutiny. Courts emphasize that legality, not procedural irregularity alone, is the key criterion for invalidating such orders. Constitutional safeguards limit judicial interference, but when orders violate fundamental rights or exceed jurisdiction, they can and should be struck down. The principles of legality and constitutional supremacy serve as the primary checks against unlawful administrative or judicial actions.