Why is judicial review exclusively civil court jurisdiction?

Question

Accepted Answer

Judicial Review Power Vested Solely in Civil Courts

The Federal Court has unanimously ruled that the Selangor state legislative assembly lacks the constitutional authority to grant Shariah courts the power of judicial review over decisions made by Islamic authorities. This decision stems from the inherent structure of Malaysia's legal system, which reserves the exclusive jurisdiction for judicial review to the civil courts, as established by the Federal Constitution. The specific provision in question, Section 66A of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003, was declared unconstitutional and void because it encroached upon a power exclusively held by the civil judiciary.
The Federal Constitution as the Supreme Law

Article 4(1) of the Federal Constitution unequivocally establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of Malaysia. This article invalidates any law that is inconsistent with its provisions. Consequently, the civil federal courts, comprising the High Courts, Court of Appeal, and Federal Court, are designated as the ultimate interpreters and independent guardians of the Federal Constitution. This foundational principle means that only these civil courts are empowered to review the constitutionality of laws and the actions of the executive arm of government. The Federal Court has consistently upheld this interpretation in previous rulings, reinforcing that the power of judicial review is intrinsically linked to the supremacy of the Federal Constitution and its oversight by the civil judiciary.
Established Jurisdictional Boundaries Between Civil and Shariah Courts

The Federal Court's decision underscores the clear demarcation between the jurisdictions of civil and Shariah courts. While state legislative assemblies can enact laws concerning Islamic law and the organisation and procedure of Shariah courts under Item 1 of the State List, this power does not extend to granting Shariah courts the authority to conduct judicial reviews. The court clarified that the phrase "constitution, organisation and procedure of Shariah courts" refers to the establishment and operational framework of these courts, not the conferment of public law powers such as judicial review. Allowing Shariah courts to exercise judicial review would blur these settled boundaries, creating ambiguity in the legal landscape.
Judicial Review Defined Within Public Law Powers

The term "judicial review" itself, as understood within the Malaysian legal framework, pertains to the supervision of administrative bodies by reference to public law powers. This process is inherently a function of civil law and is not tied to religious doctrines. The Federal Court rejected arguments that Section 66A intended a narrower interpretation of judicial review applicable only within Shariah law. Instead, the court emphasized that the wording of the provision clearly indicated an attempt to grant Shariah courts powers that have historically and constitutionally belonged exclusively to the civil courts. The court further noted that the definition of "persons professing the religion of Islam" under the State List is intended to cover natural persons and not artificial entities like Islamic councils, further limiting the scope of Shariah court jurisdiction in matters of public law.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why is judicial review exclusively civil court jurisdiction?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends