What legal grounds did the women use to challenge the enactment?

Question

Accepted Answer

Legal Grounds for Challenging the Kelantan Syariah Enactment

The challenge to the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Offences Enactment (I) 2019 by two Muslim women was primarily based on the assertion that the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly (DUN) exceeded its legislative authority by enacting provisions that fall under federal jurisdiction. Specifically, they argued that the state legislature lacked the constitutional power to legislate on 18 specific offences contained within the enactment.

This argument was founded on the principle that federal law already provides for these offences, thereby preempting the state's ability to legislate on the same matters. The women contended that the existence of a Federal law covering these offences meant that the Kelantan DUN did not have the constitutional competence to enact legislation on them. This legal challenge invoked the supremacy of the Federal Constitution and the division of powers between the federal and state governments as enshrined within it. The Federal Court, in its decision, ultimately agreed with this contention regarding 16 of the 18 provisions, declaring them null and void.
State Assembly's Authority Questioned

The core of the legal challenge revolved around the legislative competence of the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly. The two women explicitly questioned the authority of the DUN to enact 18 provisions within the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Offences Enactment (I) 2019. Their claim hinged on the argument that these specific offences were already legislated at the federal level.
Federal Law Preemption Cited

A key legal ground for the challenge was the existence of federal legislation that already addressed the offences in question. The women argued that because a Federal law covered these particular offences, the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly did not possess the constitutional authority to legislate on them. This principle of federal law overriding state law in areas of concurrent or federal jurisdiction was central to their case.
Constitutional Supremacy Invoked

The challenge implicitly and explicitly invoked the principle of constitutional supremacy in Malaysia. By arguing that the state legislature had overstepped its bounds and legislated in an area reserved for federal law, the women were asserting the primacy of the Federal Constitution. The Federal Court's subsequent decision, which declared 16 provisions null and void, underscored the importance of adhering to the constitutional framework governing legislative powers.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What legal grounds did the women use to challenge the enactment?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends