How do Federal Court decisions clarify legislative competence?

Question

Accepted Answer

Federal Court Decisions Clarify Legislative Competence by Defining Constitutional Boundaries

Federal Court decisions have consistently clarified legislative competence by emphasizing that both federal and state legislatures must operate within the boundaries established by the Federal Constitution. Laws enacted outside these demarcated powers are deemed invalid and void. This principle has been reinforced through several key rulings that delineate the scope of legislative authority, ensuring that neither level of government encroaches upon the other's constitutionally assigned domains.
Legislative Lists Demarcate Fields of Competence

The Federal Court has underscored that the Federal List and the State List within the Constitution serve as definitive demarcations of constitutional fields of competence. These lists are not mere suggestions but strict boundaries, and any legislative action that trespasses into prohibited areas is invalid. This was highlighted in the Letitia Bosman v Public Prosecutor and other appeals (No 1) [2020] case, where the court stressed that these lists prevent legislative encroachment.
State Legislatures Cannot Encroach on Federal List Matters

A crucial aspect clarified by the Federal Court is the inability of State Legislatures to legislate on matters enumerated in the Federal List, even if such matters might seem related to state affairs. In Iki Putra bin Mubarrak v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Anor [2021], the Federal Court unanimously declared Section 28 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995 unconstitutional. The ruling stated that the State Legislature lacked the power to enact this provision because it dealt with matters falling under the Federal List, specifically criminal law, which is primarily the domain of Parliament under Articles 74(3), 75, and 77 of the Federal Constitution.
Laws Violating Constitutional Demarcation are Void

The overarching principle established by the Federal Court is that any law passed by a legislature, whether federal or state, is invalid and void if it contravenes the constitutional demarcation of powers. This means that if a legislature passes a law on a subject over which it has no constitutional power, that law will be struck down. This was unequivocally demonstrated in the Kedah State’s decision not to renew business licences for pool betting operators case, where the Court of Appeal found the state's decision to be "ultra vires" the Federal Constitution, a finding supported by prior Federal Court jurisprudence.
Recent Rulings Affirm Strict Adherence to Competence

The Federal Court’s stance on legislative competence has been consistently upheld in recent judgments. In Nik Elin Zurina bt Nik Abdul Rashid & Anor v Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan [2024], an 8:1 majority ruled that certain provisions of the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code (I) Enactment 2019 were invalid. The court found that the Kelantan State Legislature had legislated on matters outside its constitutional competence, reinforcing the principle that adherence to the constitutional division of powers is paramount.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

How do Federal Court decisions clarify legislative competence?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends