Decision
The case was heard in the Federal Court by Lord President of the Federal Court Mohamed Azmi Mohamed, Chief Justice Ong Hock Thye, Federal Justice Mohamed Suffian Mohamed Hashim, Federal Justice P. S. Gill, and Justice Raja Azlan Shah. The judges unanimously held that, although the RRE did violate Singh's rights, this did not void it as an unconstitutional law. Instead, they held that the RRE could still be applied by "reading these rights into the Enactment".
The Solicitor General had submitted that under the Constitution, only acts of law inconsistent with the Constitution that were passed after independence would be void, while Article 162 excepted legislation passed prior to independence. (Clause 6 of Article 162 permits a court to apply the pre-independence legislation by modifying it as required to conform with the Constitution.) This submission was accepted by Suffian, who wrote:
| “ | To sum up, in my judgment, the Restricted Residence Enactment is silent as regards the four rights guaranteed by article 5 to a person arrested under the Enactment, namely, the right to be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest, to be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice, and, if not sooner released, to be produced without unreasonable delay and in any case within 24 hours (excluding the time of any necessary journey), before a magistrate and not to be further detained without the magistrate’s order. Such further detention must be in accordance with law, which law need not give him a right to an enquiry. Silence of the Enactment regarding the four rights does not make it contrary to the constitution. Even if the Enactment is contrary to the Constitution, the Enactment is not void. The four rights should be read into the Enactment. | ” |
As a result, it was held that the RRE's breach of Singh's rights was constitutional, and Singh was not released.
Read more about this topic: Assa Singh V. Menteri Besar Of Johore
Famous quotes containing the word decision:
“Drug misuse is not a disease, it is a decision, like the decision to step out in front of a moving car. You would call that not a disease but an error of judgment.”
—Philip K. Dick (1928–1982)
“There are many things children accept as “grown-up things” over when they have no control and for which they have no responsibility—for instance, weddings, having babies, buying houses, and driving cars. Parents who are separating really need to help their children put divorce on that grown-up list, so that children do not see themselves as the cause of their parents’ decision to live apart.”
—Fred Rogers (20th century)
“Because of these convictions, I made a personal decision in the 1964 Presidential campaign to make education a fundamental issue and to put it high on the nation’s agenda. I proposed to act on my belief that regardless of a family’s financial condition, education should be available to every child in the United States—as much education as he could absorb.”
—Lyndon Baines Johnson (1908–1973)