Latest news with #ApexCourt
The Sun
5 days ago
- General
- The Sun
Legal move seeks constitutional clarity, not immunity, says Anwar
PETALING JAYA: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said that his legal move to seek constitutional clarity was not an attempt to gain personal immunity or evade legal scrutiny but rather an effort to uphold the integrity of Malaysia's constitutional system. 'This matter has never been about seeking personal immunity or escaping legal scrutiny. ALSO READ: PM immunity: High Court denies Anwar's request to refer legal questions to Apex Court 'It concerns the integrity of our constitutional system and the need to ensure that high public office is protected from litigation that may be strategically timed, politically motivated, or institutionally disruptive,' he said in a statement posted on his Facebook and X. Anwar also acknowledged that the High Court had dismissed his application to refer eight constitutional questions—including whether a prime minister is immune from lawsuits—to the Federal Court under Article 128(2) of the Federal Constitution. He also reaffirmed his commitment to uphold the law and explained that his move was to seek legal clarity on matters affecting the role and stability of individuals holding high public office. 'I remain fully committed to the rule of law, the independence of our courts, and the dignity of democratic governance. The legal process will continue, and I will continue to discharge my responsibilities without distraction or compromise.' Earlier yesterday, the High Court dismissed Anwar's application, which was linked to a civil suit brought by his former research assistant, Muhammed Yusoff Rawther, over an alleged sexual assault that reportedly took place seven years ago. Judge Roz Mawar Rozain made the ruling after finding that none of the articles of a Federal Constitution (FC) cited by Anwar's legal team give rise to any real, substantial or justiciable question of constitutional law requiring determination by the Federal Court under Article 128(2) of the FC or Section 84 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964. 'From a judicial perspective, the proposed questions do not appear to meet the threshold of genuine constitutional controversy,' she was quoted as saying by Bernama.
Malaysian Reserve
5 days ago
- General
- Malaysian Reserve
Article 8 of Federal Constitution is shield, not sword for immunity, High Court rules
by FARAH SOLHI ARTICLE 8(1) of the Federal Constitution, which touches on fundamental rights to equality, is a legal shield and not a sword for immunity, the High Court ruled today. Judge Roz Mawar Rozain, in dismissing Prime Minister (PM) Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's bid to obtain the Federal Court's determination on constitutional questions relating to immunity from being sued, said the questions of law posed were speculative and not necessary for the disposal of the case. The questions, she added, do not concern the interpretation of validity of any constitutional provision as Anwar remains at liberty with full legal capacity. 'Articles 39, 40 and 43 (that touch on executive authority) allocate executive powers but do not confer personal immunity. No express or implied protection against civil liability exists. Constitutional silence on immunity must be interpreted in favour of equal legal accountability. 'All those articles cited are inoperative in the context of the defendant's application for constitutional reference. 'Furthermore, the defendant has affirmed readiness to proceed with trial and there is no evidence that the suit impairs his ability to perform constitutional duties. This court finds no special circumstances warranting a stay of proceedings,' she said. Roz Mawar said none of the articles raised in Anwar's application holds any real, substantial or justifiable question of constitutional law that requires determination by the Federal Court. She added that from a judicial perspective, the proposed questions do not appear to meet the threshold of genuine constitutional controversy. Therefore, the court will proceed to hear Mohammed Yusoff Rawther's suit filed against Anwar involving sexual assault allegation on June 16 at 9am, as previously scheduled. The court also dismissed oral applications by Anwar's counsel, Allan Wong, for a proceeding postponement pending their appeal that will be filed. Anwar had filed the application via his new counsels Messrs Zain, Megat and Murad on May 23, where he sought the High Court's leave (permission) to have his application heard in the Federal Court. The Tambun MP sought the Federal Court's determination on whether the suit filed against him constituted an abuse of process or a threat to public interest, and if so, argued that it should be dismissed to 'preserve constitutional governance'. He also wanted to seek the Apex Court's declaration to determine whether he, as the current PM, is entitled to constitutional protection under Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution. Apart from Wong, Anwar is also represented by counsels Datuk Seri K Rajasegaran and Datuk Megat Abdul Munir Megat Abdullah Rafaie, while Mohammed Yusoff was represented by Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali. Watching brief counsels for Malaysia Muslim Lawyers Association (PPMM) Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla, Salim Bashir Bhaskaran and Muhammad Hisham Marzuki as well as Bar Council's representative Vivek Sukumaran also appeared in the proceedings. Muhammed Yusoff claims he was assaulted at Anwar's home in Segambut, Kuala Lumpur, on Oct 2, 2018. In his statement of claim, the 32-year-old plaintiff claimed that he was accused of plotting to taint Anwar's reputation and political career, following his police report on the incident. He claimed that the alleged sexual assault and accusations had affected his mental health. As such, Muhammed Yusoff is seeking general, aggravated and exemplary damages, as well as interest, costs and other relief deemed fit by the court.
Hans India
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
Former minister Kakani arrested
Nellore: A major setback to YSR Congress in Nellore district as police on Sunday arrested that party district president and former Minister Kakani Govardhan Reddy, who was on the flee for the last two months. It may be recalled that Kakani name was added as 'A4' accused among the six, who were involved in illegal mining and transportation of Quartz worth about Rs 250 crore from Rusthum Mines in Tatiparthi village of Pidalakur mandal. Kakani has been facing charges as A-4 accused under multiple sections of law, provisions of the Explosive Act Substance Act, and SC, ST Atrocity Act. It may be recalled that after the Apex Court had denied his plea for anticipatory bail recently, police already issued a 'look out notice' against Kakani Govardhan Reddy. They have arrested him in Kerala State on Sunday. Sources say that cops may bring him to the State either on Monday or after two days.
Hans India
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
Ban on 4PM YouTube channel lifted, SC told
New Delhi: The Supreme Court was apprised on Tuesday that the Union government has withdrawn its directive to block the YouTube channel 4PM News Network. A bench of Justices B. R. Gavai and A. G. Masih were hearing a plea filed by journalist Sanjay Sharma challenging the Centre's directive to block his news channel on YouTube on the grounds of 'national security' and 'public order'. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing on the petitioner's behalf, submitted that since the blocking order has been withdrawn by the authorities, the prayer for interim relief has turned infructuous. However, Sibal pressed the prayer contained in the petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Information Technology (IT) Blocking Rules, 2009. In view of the submission, the Apex Court ordered tagging the instant petition with the pending batch of pleas raising similar issues. Last week, the Justice Gavai-led Bench issued notice on the plea filed by the editor of the digital news platform and sought responses from the Union government, including the Ministry of Home Affairs, and YouTube. When a prayer for interim relief was pressed, the Top Court had said that it was not inclined to pass any stay order without hearing from the government. In his writ petition filed before the Apex Court, journalist Sanjay Sharma said that non-furnishing of the blocking order or underlying complaint violated statutory and constitutional safeguards.
Hans India
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
Ban on 4PM YouTube channel lifted, Supreme Court told
New Delhi: The Supreme Court was apprised on Tuesday that the Union government has withdrawn its directive to block the YouTube channel 4PM News Network. A bench of Justices B. R. Gavai and A. G. Masih was hearing a plea filed by journalist Sanjay Sharma challenging the Centre's directive to block his news channel on YouTube on the grounds of "national security" and "public order". Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing on the petitioner's behalf, submitted that since the blocking order has been withdrawn by the authorities, the prayer for interim relief has turned infructuous. However, Sibal pressed the prayer contained in the petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Information Technology (IT) Blocking Rules, 2009. In view of the submission, the Apex Court ordered tagging the instant petition with the pending batch of pleas raising similar issues. Last week, the Justice Gavai-led Bench issued notice on the plea filed by the editor of the digital news platform and sought responses from the Union government, including the Ministry of Home Affairs, and YouTube. When a prayer for interim relief was pressed, the Top Court had said that it was not inclined to pass any stay order without hearing from the government. In his writ petition filed before the Apex Court, journalist Sanjay Sharma said that non-furnishing of the blocking order or underlying complaint violated statutory and constitutional safeguards. "Rules 8, 9, and 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, which permit blocking without notice or hearing, are violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution, as they oust the principles of natural justice and enable a shadow regime of censorship devoid of transparency or accountability," stated the petition filed through Talha Abdul Rahman. Further, it said that the Constitution does not permit the blanket removal of content without an opportunity to be heard. "'National security' and 'public order' are not talismanic invocations to insulate executive action from scrutiny. They are constitutionally recognised grounds under Article 19(2), but are subject to the test of reasonableness and proportionality," the plea said. A vague reference to these grounds, without even disclosing the offending content, makes it impossible for the petitioner to challenge or remedy the allegation, thereby depriving him of his fundamental right to free speech and fair hearing, added the petition. The Editors Guild of India, in a recent press statement, said that it was "deeply concerned" by the decision of the Union government to block YouTube Channel 4PM News Network, and termed the move an "opaque use of executive power, without prior notice or opportunity for response". "Arbitrary takedown orders undermine the fundamental right to freedom of speech. The Guild reiterated its demand for a transparent and accountable mechanism for content takedowns, particularly when it concerns journalistic work. National security cannot become a pretext to silence critical voices or independent reporting," added the press statement.
