CASE OF THE WEEK

The appellant, pursuant to the Printing Presses and Publications (Control of Undesirable Publications) (No. 5) Order 2008, had banned a book entitled "Muslim Women and the Challenges of Islamic Extremism" (`the book'). The appellant was satisfied that the book was prejudicial to public order, and had therefore exercised the absolute discretion vested upon him by s. 7(1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (`the Act'). Dissatisfied with that exercise of administrative discretion, the respondents sought judicial review. The High Court subsequently quashed the decision of the appellant. Hence, the appellant appealed. The issue that arose was whether the decision of the appellant was flawed.

Held (dismissing the appeal with costs; affirming decision of High Court):

Per Abdul Wahab Patail JCA delivering the judgment of the court:

(1) The learned judge in conducting the judicial review had examined s. 7(1) of the Act and apprised himself of the precedent objective facts before the absolute discretion arose to be exercised. Then taking into consideration the fact not disputed that the book had been in circulation for two years before the order to prohibit it was made, and that there was no evidence shown of prejudice to public order during that period, the learned judge questioned the exercise of the discretion and quashed the order to prohibit the book. It was clearly an examination confined to the decision making process as to whether it was illegal, or irrational in the particular circumstances. (para 18)

(2) If no evidence of actual prejudice to public order was produced, the conclusion must be that no prejudice to public order had occurred. If in the two years the book was in circulation and no prejudice to public order had occurred, hence, it followed that the book was in the first place unlikely to be prejudicial to public order. To be satisfied that the book was prejudicial to public order although in the face of the fact there was no prejudice to public order in the two years the book was in circulation, was in such outrageous defiance of logic that it fell squarely within the meaning of Wednesbury unreasonableness, and of irrationality. (para 19)

(3) Even if there was a breach of JAKIM Guidelines, that did not address the issue of the book being prejudicial to public order. The decision by the appellant was, in the circumstances, flawed and not exercised in accordance with s. 7(1) of the Act. (para 21)

Bahasa Malaysia Translation Of Headnotes

Perayu, menurut Perintah Mesin Cetak dan Penerbitan (Kawalan Hasil Penerbitan Tidak Diingini) (No. 5) 2008, telah mengharamkan buku bertajuk "Muslim Women and the Challenges of Islamic Extremism" (`buku itu'). Perayu berpuas hati bahawa buku itu memudaratkan ketenteraman awam, oleh itu beliau telah melaksanakan budi bicara mutlak yang terletak hak kepadanya di bawah s. 7(1) Akta Mesin Cetak dan Penerbitan 1984 (`Akta'). Tidak puas hati dengan perlaksanaan budi bicara pentadbiran itu, responden memohon semakan kehakiman. Mahkamah Tinggi membatalkan keputusan perayu. Oleh itu, perayu membuat rayuan ini. Isu yang timbul adalah sama ada keputusan perayu adalah cacat.

Diputuskan (menolak rayuan dengan kos; mengesahkan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi):

Oleh Abdul Wahab Patail HMR menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah:

(1) Yang arif hakim dalam menjalankan semakan kehakiman telah memeriksa s. 7(1) Akta dan telah memaklumkan dirinya mengenai objektif utama fakta-fakta sebelum budi bicara mutlak timbul untuk dilaksanakan. Mengambilkira fakta yang tidak dipertikaikan bahawa buku itu telah berada dalam peredaran lebih kurang dua tahun sebelum perintah dibuat untuk mengharamkannya, dan tiada keterangan menunjukkan ia telah memudaratkan ketenteraman awam dalam tempoh tersebut, yang arif hakim telah mempersoalkan perlaksanaan budi bicara dan telah membatalkan perintah untuk mengharamkan buku itu. Ia jelas adalah pemeriksaan yang terhad kepada proses membuat keputusan sama ada ia melanggar undang-undang, atau tidak rasional dalam hal keadaan tertentu.

(2) Jika tiada keterangan yang menunjukkan bahawa terdapat kemudaratan kepada ketenteraman awam dikemukakan, kesimpulannya mestilah bahawa tiada kemudaratan berlaku pada ketenteraman awam. Jika dalam tempoh dua tahun buku itu berada dalam peredaran, dan tiada kemudaratan berlaku terhadap ketenteraman awam, maka ia boleh dikatakan bahawa buku itu mungkin tidak akan memudaratkan ketenteraman awam. Untuk berpuas hati bahawa buku itu akan memudaratkan ketenteraman awam walau pun pada hakikatnya tiada kemudaratan pada ketenteraman awam berlaku dalam tempoh dua tahun buku itu berada dalam peredaran, adalah keterlaluan dan melampau serta tidak logik sehingga ia terangkum dalam maksud ketidakmunasabahan Wednesbury dan tidak rasional.

(3) Jika pun terdapat perlanggaran garis panduan JAKIM, ianya tidak menangani isu buku itu memudaratkan ketenteraman awam. Keputusan perayu, dalam keadaan-keadaan tersebut, adalah cacat dan tidak dilaksanakan mengikut s. 7(1) Akta.

Case(s) referred to:

Cameron (AP) v. Gibson & Anor [2005] ScotsCS CSIH 83 (refd)

Darma Suria Risman Saleh v. Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors [2010] 1 CLJ 300 FC (refd)

Harpers Trading (M) Sdn Bhd v. National Union of Commercial Workers [1991] 2 CLJ 881; [1991] 1 CLJ (Rep) 159 SC (refd)

Kumpulan Perangsang Selangor Bhd v. Zaid Mohd Noh [1997] 2 CLJ 11 SC (refd)

Michael Lee Fook Wah v. Menteri Sumber Tenaga Manusia, Malaysia & Anor [1998] 1 CLJ 227 CA (refd)

Minister of Labour & The Government of Malaysia v. Lie Seng Fatt [1990] 1 CLJ 1103; [1990] 1 CLJ (Rep) 195 SC (refd)

Pihak Berkuasa Negeri Sabah v. Sugumar Balakrishnan & Another Appeal [2002] 4 CLJ 105 FC (refd)

R Rama Chandran v. Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor [1997] 1 CLJ 147 FC (refd)

T Ganeswaran lwn. Suruhanjaya Polis DiRaja Malaysia & Satu Lagi [2005] 3 CLJ 302 CA (refd)

Legislation referred to:

Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, s. 7(1)

Counsel:

For the appellant - Noor Hisham Ismail SFC (Kogilambigai Muthusamy FC with him); AG's Chambers

For the respondent - Malik Imtiaz Sarwar (K Shanmuga, Aston Paira, Azira Aziz & Danial Abdul Rahman with him); M/s Azzat & Izzat

[Appeal from High Court, Kuala Lumpur; Judicial Review No: R3-25-347-2008]

Reported by Suhainah Wahiduddin