LOGAN A/L SEGARAN v Kerajaan Malaysia (BA-24-26-11/2024)

High Court of Malaysia22 Dec 2025

The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.

Open official source PDF Report an issue

Text not available yet

We have this decision's details, but the judgment text is not available yet.

Something wrong on this page?

Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.

Report an issue Request removal

Malaysian judgment

Case metadata

Court: High Court of Malaysia
Decision date: 22 Dec 2025
Case number: BA-24-26-11/2024
Coram: YA Puan Narkunavathy Sundareson
Practice area: The application seeks to invalidate sections 4(5), 13, 14, 15, 16, 18A, 20 and/or 30 contravening Articles 8, 121(1) and/or 149 Although sections 4(5), 13, 14 to 16, 18A and 20 modify traditional procedural or evidentiary rules, they do not displace the core adjudicatory function of the Judiciary. Under these provisions, the Court retains judicial oversight in that they retain the inherent power to assess the credibility, weight, and relevance of evidence. The Judiciary remains the final arbiter of fact. As these measures allow the detenu a chance to challenge the prosecution’s case, they remain consistent with the right to a fair trial under Article 5 and are shielded by the special legislative powers granted under Article 149. Sections 4(5), 13, 14 to 16, 18A and 20 also satisfy the satisfy the principle of proportionality and have a rational nexus with the objective of SOSMA. This Court holds that mandatory remand requirement in section 30 violates the sanctity of judicial powers vested in the Judiciary and ignores the role of Judges as arbiters. While the Legislature maintains the authority to enact special measures for security offences under Article 149, those laws cannot completely extinguish the core adjudicatory functions of the Judiciary. Therefore, Section 30 is struck down as an impermissible abrogation of judicial power under Article 121(1)
Version: Alasan Penghakiman 1
Published: 24 Dec 2025
Source ID: 62bf513e-e915-40f5-8e96-3272288ab129

Catchwords

The application seeks to invalidate sections 4(5), 13, 14, 15, 16, 18A, 20 and/or 30 contravening Articles 8, 121(1) and/or 149 Although sections 4(5), 13, 14 to 16, 18A and 20 modify traditional procedural or evidentiary rules, they do not displace the core adjudicatory function of the Judiciary. Under these provisions, the Court retains judicial oversight in that they retain the inherent power to assess the credibility, weight, and relevance of evidence. The Judiciary remains the final arbiter of fact. As these measures allow the detenu a chance to challenge the prosecution’s case, they remain consistent with the right to a fair trial under Article 5 and are shielded by the special legislative powers granted under Article 149. Sections 4(5), 13, 14 to 16, 18A and 20 also satisfy the satisfy the principle of proportionality and have a rational nexus with the objective of SOSMA. This Court holds that mandatory remand requirement in section 30 violates the sanctity of judicial powers vested in the Judiciary and ignores the role of Judges as arbiters. While the Legislature maintains the authority to enact special measures for security offences under Article 149, those laws cannot completely extinguish the core adjudicatory functions of the Judiciary. Therefore, Section 30 is struck down as an impermissible abrogation of judicial power under Article 121(1)

Parties

1. ) LOGAN A/L SEGARAN - applicant - ejudgment_parties
2. ) PARTHIPAN A/L RATHAKRISHNAN - applicant - ejudgment_parties
3. ) RAMAKRISHNAN A/L MASEE - applicant - ejudgment_parties
4. ) MANORAJ A/L SEGARAN - applicant - ejudgment_parties
5. ) HEMANATHAN A/L SELVARAJAH - applicant - ejudgment_parties
6. ) RAVISHANKAR A/L KRISHNASAMY - applicant - ejudgment_parties

Primary source

Compare this reader text against the official judgment source.

Open source PDF

Catchwords

Parties

1. ) LOGAN A/L SEGARAN - applicant - ejudgment_parties

2. ) PARTHIPAN A/L RATHAKRISHNAN - applicant - ejudgment_parties

3. ) RAMAKRISHNAN A/L MASEE - applicant - ejudgment_parties

4. ) MANORAJ A/L SEGARAN - applicant - ejudgment_parties

5. ) HEMANATHAN A/L SELVARAJAH - applicant - ejudgment_parties

6. ) RAVISHANKAR A/L KRISHNASAMY - applicant - ejudgment_parties