What were the specific constitutional grounds for voiding the Shariah enactment?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Appeal Court Found Section 66 of the Negri Sembilan Shariah Enactment Inconsistent with Federal Constitutional Provisions

The Appeal Court declared section 66 of the Negri Sembilan Shariah Enactment void, as it found the provision criminalising Muslim transgenders for cross-dressing to be in conflict with several articles of the Federal Constitution. This decision was grounded in the principle of the supremacy of the Federal Constitution, asserting that no state law, including Shariah enactments, is exempt from constitutional scrutiny. The court's examination considered medical evidence regarding gender identity disorder, leading to the conclusion that penalising individuals for behaviour aligned with their innate condition infringed upon fundamental constitutional rights.
Violation of Article 5: Liberty of the Person

The Appeal Court's ruling highlighted that section 66 of the Shariah Enactment contravened Article 5 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees the liberty of the person. By criminalising cross-dressing for Muslim transgenders, the enactment created a situation where individuals could face arrest simply for stepping outside their homes, thus restricting their fundamental freedom and personal liberty. This potential for arbitrary detention was deemed inconsistent with the constitutional safeguard against unlawful deprivation of liberty.
Conflict with Article 8: Non-Discrimination

Furthermore, the court found that the Shariah enactment's prohibition on cross-dressing for Muslim transgenders violated Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, which enshrines the principle of non-discrimination. The decision was informed by undisputed medical evidence concerning gender identity disorder, suggesting that such individuals have little choice but to act in accordance with their inherent condition. Criminalising this behaviour was interpreted as discriminatory, failing to recognise the distinct circumstances of transgender individuals and treating them unfairly under the law.
Infringement of Article 9: Freedom of Movement

The Appeal Court also identified a conflict between section 66 of the Shariah Enactment and Article 9 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees freedom of movement. The criminalisation of cross-dressing effectively imposed restrictions on where and how transgender individuals could move, as adhering to their gender identity in public could lead to legal repercussions. This limitation on their ability to move freely within the Federation was considered an infringement of their constitutional rights.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What were the specific constitutional grounds for voiding the Shariah enactment?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends