What is the impact of the Federal Court ruling on Syariah law?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Federal Court ruling clarifies jurisdictional boundaries and reinforces the harmonization between civil and Syariah law.

The Federal Court's decision to strike down 16 provisions of the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code Enactment (1) 2019 was based solely on the fact that these provisions exceeded the jurisdiction granted to the state legislative body. This ruling clarifies that actions contrary to Islamic law remain offences under Syariah, but their enforcement now depends on whether federal laws already cover them. The Department of Syariah Judiciary Malaysia (JKSM) indicated that this decision can be viewed as strengthening Islamic law by affirming that 'takzir' punishments in Syariah courts align with the Penal Code, suggesting a move towards harmonization between civil and Syariah legal frameworks.
Provisions Exceeded State Legislative Jurisdiction

The Federal Court's majority decision, comprising 8 out of 9 judges, declared 16 provisions of the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code Enactment (1) 2019 as null and void. The primary reason cited was that the State Legislature had overstepped its constitutional powers by enacting laws on offences already covered by existing federal legislation. This highlights the critical role of the State Legislative Assembly (DUN) in ensuring that its enactments remain within the scope of its legislative authority before they are enacted.
Continued Validity of Offences and Enforcement under Civil Law

Despite the invalidation of specific provisions in the Syariah Criminal Code Enactment, actions contrary to Islamic law continue to be recognised as offences under Syariah. For instance, offences such as 'khalwat' and the consumption of alcohol remain prohibited. However, their enforcement now falls under relevant civil laws, such as the Penal Code or the Trade Descriptions Act, if those federal statutes cover the same conduct. The JKSM clarified that the court's decision did not abolish these offences but redirected their legal recourse.
Harmonization and Enhanced Punishment under Civil Courts

The Federal Court's judgment has been interpreted as a step towards harmonizing civil and Syariah law. Specifically, the court noted that 'takzir' punishments in Syariah courts are consistent with those in the Penal Code. For offences like 'sumbang mahram', if committed by a Muslim in Kelantan, the case can be tried in a civil court, where the Penal Code offers a more severe punishment than previously stipulated in the Kelantan enactment. This signifies that the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court is limited to matters not already legislated by federal law.
Jurisdictional Clarity for Joint Trials

The ruling also provides clarity on jurisdictional matters, particularly in cases involving both Muslims and non-Muslims. For an offence like 'muncikari', if a Muslim and a non-Muslim are jointly accused of collaborating in a crime, they can be tried together in a civil court. This is because the Syariah Court's jurisdiction is confined to Muslims, whereas civil courts have broader authority to preside over cases involving individuals of all faiths. Therefore, the Federal Court's decision primarily addresses the legislative competence of state versus federal authorities, not the punishment of Muslims for committing offences.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What is the impact of the Federal Court ruling on Syariah law?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends