Latest news with #HarmindarSinghDhaliwal
Free Malaysia Today
28-05-2025
- General
- Free Malaysia Today
Govt shouldn't be allowed to sue for defamation, says ex-senior judge
Former Federal Court judge Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal said political parties and corporations should also not be allowed to sue for defamation. (Facebook pic) KUALA LUMPUR : Only individuals should be allowed to file defamation suits, said former Federal Court judge Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal. Speaking at the 'Defamation Law Reform: Revisiting the Defamation Act 1957' forum here today, Harmindar said it did not make sense for the government to sue its citizens for defamation. 'The government shouldn't be allowed to sue for defamation. 'I cannot fathom how a government can have a governing reputation and yet use the taxpayers' money to sue its own citizens to stifle their criticism. 'It just doesn't make sense to me,' he said at the forum held at the Malaysian Bar's office. Harmindar, who retired last month, cited an 'unusual case' where the Sarawak government was allowed to sue an individual. He was referring to the apex court's landmark ruling on Sept 26, 2018, that the federal and state governments could sue individuals for defamation. The ruling was made in the case involving Bandar Kuching MP Chong Chieng Jen's appeal against the Sarawak government. Similarly, Harmindar said, several other entities, particularly corporations, should be barred from filing defamation suits. 'I might be controversial here but I said in some of my judgments that defamation suits should be restricted to individuals and not corporations, simply because of the inequality of power between corporations against the individual. 'Political parties, organisations, governments, and corporations should not be allowed to sue for defamation,' he said. Apologies useless Harmindar also said orders for apologies in defamation cases served no real purpose. 'An apology is useless if it does not come from the heart, so why put it in the legislation? It's easier if you order corrections. An apology doesn't mean anything,' he said. The former judge also disagreed with awarding exorbitant amounts in damages in defamation suits. He said that under defamation laws, a claimant's primary concern was vindication, not an excessive amount of money in damages. 'The common law has always been occupied with money as compensation, but defamation law is quite different because what the person seeks is vindication. 'When you win a case, you are vindicated but some courts award millions (in damages); all that is rubbish,' he said.
Malaysiakini
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Malaysiakini
Bar govts, firms from suing individuals for defamation, ex-judge says
A retired Federal Court judge today suggested the Bar Council push for an amendment to the Defamation Act to disallow governments and corporations from filing defamation suits. Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal told a forum in Kuala Lumpur that the defamation law should be restricted to individuals as reputation was initially about honour and good name, among others...
New Straits Times
28-05-2025
- Politics
- New Straits Times
Defamation payouts must not exceed injury compensation, says ex-Federal Court judge
KUALA LUMPUR: Damages awarded in civil defamation suits should not exceed those granted in cases involving physical injury, said former Federal Court judge Tan Sri Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal. He described it as disproportionate for courts to award millions for reputational harm, while victims suffering life-altering injuries, such as paraplegia, receive only hundreds of thousands. "People will lose confidence in the court if you award millions for loss of reputation rather than for the loss of limbs," he said at the Bar Council's forum on defamation law reform, Revisiting the Defamation Act 1957. Additionally, the former top court judge said that exemplary damages, additional compensation awarded beyond actual loss, especially when the defendant has acted with vindictiveness or malice, should have no place in defamation law. Meanwhile, Bar Council Civil Law and Law Reform Committee co-chair Datuk Seri M. Ramachelvam said politicians should not receive higher awards than ordinary individuals in defamation cases. "They (politicians and celebrities) have far more resources to respond," he said. Ramachelvam also pointed out that the legal costs of initiating a defamation suit were prohibitive for ordinary people. He suggested creating an alternative mechanism to resolve defamation cases and improve access to justice. "In Malaysia, it's usually the rich and influential who pursue defamation cases," he added. The committee's deputy chairman Saraswathy Shirke Deo, said the committee was considering a proposal to raise the threshold for defamation claims to prevent trivial matters from reaching the courts. "We want to make it a tad bit harder for celebrities and politicians. You want to ensure that when you file a defamation suit, it's a genuine one. "So, we would want to raise the threshold," she said.
Free Malaysia Today
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Bid to review court's power to revisit pardons boards' decisions on hold
In a split decision in August 2024, the Federal Court ruled that the commuted 30-year jail terms handed down on four inmates should run from the date of their arrest rather than the date of their pardon. PUTRAJAYA : The prosecution's application to review a Federal Court ruling that it has jurisdiction under a 2023 law to revisit decisions made by three pardons boards has been put on hold. In a majority ruling in August 2024, Justices Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal and Hanipah Farikullah ruled that the commuted 30-year jail terms handed down on four inmates should run from the date of their arrest rather than the date of their pardon. Justice Nordin Hassan dissented. This resulted in the prosecution filing a review application on grounds that the judges in the majority had acted beyond their jurisdiction. Today, lawyer N Sivananthan said the scheduled review hearing before a three-member bench was vacated to explore the possibility of allowing 123 other condemned prisoners to begin their jail terms from the date of their arrest, as held by last year's ruling. A court registrar gave the prosecution and the lawyers acting for the four inmates more time to reach an amicable solution. 'A case management has been fixed on June 3 to report to the court on any possible outcome,' the lawyer told reporters. Sivananthan said he was informed that, based on prison records, these prisoners also had their death sentences commuted to jail terms from the date that their respective pardons boards approved their clemency petitions. 'They will be serving a longer duration in prison as the time served from the time of their arrest was not taken into account,' he said. AdChoices ADVERTISING The Federal Court had allowed the 30-year jail terms of the four applicants – G Jiva, 55; P Balakrishnan, 48; Thai national Phrueksa Thaemchim, 41; and Zambian national Mailesi Phiri, 47 – to begin from the date of their arrests for drug trafficking. In doing so, the court overturned orders by the pardons boards of Kedah, Penang and the federal territories that the jail terms run from the date the pardons were granted. Prosecutors argue that the apex court's decision was inconsistent with the powers accorded to it under the Revision of the Sentence of Death and Imprisonment for Natural Life (Temporary Jurisdiction of the Federal Court) Act 2023. N Sivananthan is appearing for Balakrishnan and Jiva, K Simon Murali is representing the Thai woman, while Abdul Rashid Ismail is acting for Mailesi. Deputy public prosecutors Asmah Musa, Tetralina Ahmed Fauzi, Ng Siew Wee and Solehah Noratikah Ismail are appearing for the prosecution.
