Suruhanjaya Komunikasi Dan Multimedia Malaysia (MCMC), Cyberjaya v 1. ) INDIVIDU YANG TIDAK DIKENALI (Pentadbir Saluran Telegram 'Edisi Siasat') (WA-21CY-1-05/2025)

PERSONS UNKNOWN (ADMINISTRATORS OF THE “EDISI SIASAT” TELEGRAM

CHANNEL) PERSONS UNKNOWN (ADMINISTRATORS OF THE “EDISI KHAS” TELEGRAM

CHANNEL) TELEGRAM MESSENGER INC …DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 4 – Plaintiff’s Notice of Application for Interim Injunction) S/N kor3DkdGPkiHtWtYIizoQQ

This is the Court’s Grounds of Judgment for the decision on the Plaintiff’s application vide Enclosure 4, for interim injunctive relief pending the disposal of the main suit.

The Plaintiff, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (“MCMC”), seeks wide-ranging interim orders against three Defendants:

(a) the First and Second Defendants, being unknown persons who administer Telegram channels styled Edisi Siasat and Edisi Khas; and

(b) the Third Defendant, Telegram Messenger Inc., is an internet messaging service provider licensed under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (“CMA 1998”).

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are responsible, directly or indirectly, for the publication and dissemination of false, malicious, and offensive content (“the Impugned Contents”) through the said Telegram channels (“the Impugned Channels”).

The application was first moved ex parte on 13.6.2025, where certain interim orders were granted. Plaintiff pursuant to Order 29 and/or Order 92 rule 4, and Order 3 rule 5 of the Rules of Court S/N kor3DkdGPkiHtWtYIizoQQ (“ROC 2012”), and/or the inherent jurisdiction of this Court pray for the following reliefs:

(a) A mandatory injunction compelling all the Defendants to immediately remove all false, menacing and offensive contents cited as Impugned Contents from the Impugned Channels;

(b) A prohibitory injunction restraining all the Defendants and/or their agents, servants and associates from further uttering, writing, disseminating or publishing, republishing, or distributing the Impugned Contents or words to the effect or similar or in relation to the Impugned Contents;

(c) A mandatory injunction directing the Third Defendant to close the Impugned Channels;

(d) A mandatory injunction directing the Third Defendant to close similar or new channels that utter, write, disseminate or publish, republish, or distribute the Impugned Contents or words to the effect or similar or in relation to the Impugned Contents;

(e) A mandatory injunction compelling the Third Defendant to disclose all available information about the First and Second Defendants, including: S/N kor3DkdGPkiHtWtYIizoQQ

(i) Full legal names and names of individuals;

(v) Registered physical addresses; and

(f) Paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) shall be in force until the final conclusion of these Writ proceedings or such or any further Order of this Court.

(g) That this Honourable Court extend the period of seven

(h) That the costs of and incidental to this application be costs in the cause;

(i) That this Honourable Court fixes an inter partes hearing date for this application; S/N kor3DkdGPkiHtWtYIizoQQ

(j) That parties be at liberty to apply, including that the Plaintiff be at liberty to apply for any further extensions of time; and

(k) Such further and other orders, directions or relief as this Honourable Court deems fit.

The matter came before me for determination inter partes.

The Plaintiff commenced the main suit by Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed on 21.5.2025.

In its Writ endorsement of claim and further particularised in the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff seeks, inter alia:

(a) A declaration that the First and Second Defendants have allowed and/or facilitated and/or condoned the use of the Impugned Channels to publish and circulate the Impugned Contents on the Aggrieved Parties in Malaysia;

(b) A declaration that the Third Defendant has aided and/or abetted and/or facilitated and/or contributed to the publication and circulation of the Impugned Contents by the First and Second Defendants in not removing the S/N kor3DkdGPkiHtWtYIizoQQ Impugned Channels when statutorily and/or otherwise instructed;

(c) A declaration that the Third Defendant is in breach of the provisions of paragraph 73(1)(a) and subsection 263(2) of the CMA 1998;

(d) A mandatory injunction compelling all the Defendants to immediately and permanently remove all false, menacing and offensive content cited as Impugned Contents from the Impugned Channels;

(e) A prohibitory injunction restraining the First and the Second Defendants and/or their agents, servants and associates from further uttering, writing, disseminating or publishing, republishing, or distributing the Impugned Contents or words to the effect or similar or in relation to the Impugned Contents;

(f) A mandatory injunction directing the Third Defendant to permanently close the Impugned Channels;

(g) A mandatory injunction directing the Third Defendant to permanently close similar or new channels that utter, write, disseminate, or publish, republish, or distribute the Impugned Contents or words to the effect or similar or in relation to the Impugned Contents; S/N kor3DkdGPkiHtWtYIizoQQ

(h) A mandatory injunction compelling the Third Defendant to disclose all available information about the First and Second Defendants, including:

(i) Full legal names and names of individuals;

(v) Registered physical addresses; and

(i) Declarations that the First and Second Defendants facilitated the use of the Impugned Channels to publish the Impugned Contents, and that the Third Defendant aided, abetted, or facilitated such publication by failing to act when instructed;

(j) A declaration that the Third Defendant is in breach of paragraph 73(1)(a) and subsection 263(2) CMA 1998;

(k) Injunctive reliefs, including mandatory closure of the Impugned Channels, closure of future similar channels, removal of contents, and disclosure of the administrators’ particulars;

(l) General and exemplary damages, interest, and costs. S/N kor3DkdGPkiHtWtYIizoQQ

The Statement of Claim sets out in detail more than 20 items of the Impugned Contents published between February 2024 and March 2025. These include:

(a) False allegations of corruption against the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers;

(b) Attacks on the Malaysian Royal Institution and senior police officers;

(c) Doxxing, cyberbullying, and personal harassment of public officials;

(d) False claims intended to incite racial and religious discord, undermine confidence in public institutions, and erode public order.

The Plaintiff contends that such publications are calculated to cause irreparable harm to public confidence, governance, and national security, and that interim restraint is necessary pending the final hearing.

(i) The Plaintiff’s Submissions

In support of Enclosure 4, the Plaintiff relies upon: S/N kor3DkdGPkiHtWtYIizoQQ

(a) Order 29 rule 1 ROC 2012 and the well-established principles in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396;

(b) Sections 16, 73 and 263 of the CMA 1998, which empower MCMC to enforce compliance and compel cooperation from service providers; and

(c) The public interest dimension of preventing further dissemination of content that is false, menacing, and offensive.

It is argued that:

(a) There is a serious issue to be tried concerning breaches of the CMA 1998, Sedition Act 1948, and other statutory provisions;

(b) Damages would be wholly inadequate to compensate for the harm to institutions and public order;

(c) The balance of convenience strongly favours injunctive restraint, particularly where national security and social harmony are implicated.

The Third Defendant, Telegram Messenger Inc., resists the application on several grounds: S/N kor3DkdGPkiHtWtYIizoQQ

(a) The orders sought are excessively wide, amounting in substance to final relief at an interlocutory stage;

(b) As an intermediary service provider, Telegram is not a publisher of user-generated content, and its obligations under the CMA 1998 should be understood in the context of a “notice-and-takedown” regime rather than pre-censorship;

(c) The disclosure orders sought are premature and intrusive, and raise issues of data protection and privacy;

(d) Several of the specified impugned contents have already been removed upon notice, demonstrating Telegram’s willingness to cooperate. D. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The Court is required to determine:

(a) Whether the Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for an interim injunction under American Cyanamid;

(b) Whether the scope of relief sought, particularly the mandatory elements (closure of channels, blocking of future channels, disclosure orders), can be justified at this stage; S/N kor3DkdGPkiHtWtYIizoQQ

(c) How the Court should approach the position of the Third Defendant as an intermediary service provider.

The House of Lords in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 (HL) laid down a structured three-stage inquiry which has since been adopted and consistently applied by Malaysian courts. (e.g. Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v Mohd Noor bin Abdullah [1995] 1 MLJ 193; Sistem Televisyen Malaysia Bhd v Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad [2002] 3 CLJ 449).

The three-stages inquiry as laid down ini American Cyanamid are:

(a) Serious question to be tried;

(b) Adequacy of damages;

(c) Balance of convenience (or justice).

The applicant need not show a probability of success, but must establish that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious and raises a genuine issue fit for trial. This ensures the Court does not decide contested merits prematurely. Per Lord Diplock (at p 407); “The court no longer has to decide whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case; it is enough that there is a serious question to be tried.”

The Court next considers whether damages would be an adequate remedy for either party if the injunction were wrongly granted or refused. If monetary compensation can fully redress the harm, the injunction should ordinarily be refused. Conversely, S/N kor3DkdGPkiHtWtYIizoQQ if the plaintiff’s harm is irreparable or not readily quantifiable, this factor favours the grant.

The Court weighs the comparative prejudice likely to result from granting versus refusing the injunction. The goal is to preserve the status quo ante until trial. If the scales remain even, the Court should consider maintaining the position that minimises overall injustice.

I have considered the well-established principles laid down in American Cyanamid and applied consistently by Malaysian courts in interlocutory applications under Order 29 rule 1 of the ROC 2012. The Court will take those guiding principles into account in determining the present application.

(a) Serious Issue to be Tried

I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has demonstrated a serious issue to be tried. The detailed particulars in the SOC show that the Impugned Channels are engaged in a deliberate campaign of disseminating false, menacing and offensive content, directed at the highest levels of government, the Royal Institution, and enforcement agencies.

Such conduct, if established, would fall within the scope of section 233 CMA 1998 (offensive use of network services), and S/N kor3DkdGPkiHtWtYIizoQQ may also implicate the sedition and criminal defamation provisions under Malaysian law.

(b) Adequacy of Damages

The harm alleged goes beyond personal reputations. It undermines the public's confidence in governance, institutions, and national security. No measure of damages could adequately compensate for such injury.

(c) Balance of Convenience

On balance, the equities favour restraining further dissemination of the impugned contents. The public interest in preventing continued or irreparable reputational harm outweighs any prejudice that may be suffered by the Defendants through a temporary restraint pending the disposal of the action.

That said, the mandatory reliefs sought, namely, the permanent closure of the existing channels, restraint against the establishment of any future channels, and the disclosure of administrator identities, are, in substance, indistinguishable from the final remedies pleaded in the Writ.

Such reliefs would go beyond the preservation of the status quo and risk determining substantive rights prematurely. The Court must therefore proceed with caution in granting interlocutory orders that overlap with the ultimate reliefs sought. S/N kor3DkdGPkiHtWtYIizoQQ

It is trite that the Court should be cautious in granting, at the interlocutory stage, relief which is in substance indistinguishable from the final relief sought. Such an order should only be made where the plaintiff establishes a strong prima facie case and demonstrates a high degree of assurance that he will succeed at trial. (See Shepherd Homes Ltd v Sandham [1971] Ch 340; Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v Mohd Noor bin Abdullah [1995] 1 MLJ 193).

On the present evidence, while the Plaintiff has shown that there is a serious question to be tried, I am not persuaded that the stringent threshold for the grant of an interim mandatory injunction has been met. The Plaintiff’s interests may, at this stage, be adequately safeguarded by a narrower prohibitory injunction restraining the continued publication or dissemination of the specified impugned contents pending trial.

As for the Third Defendant, I accept that as an intermediary, its obligations must be construed in light of Mkini Dotcom Sdn Bhd v Mkini Group Sdn Bhd [2021] 2 MLJ 652 (FC) and related authorities. The Court should not impose obligations amounting to pre-censorship. A tailored “notice-and-takedown” obligation is more proportionate at this interlocutory stage.

In Mkini Dotcom, the Federal Court emphasised that the operator of an online platform which provides space for third-party content stands in a materially different position from the primary author or publisher of that content. The operator is not S/N kor3DkdGPkiHtWtYIizoQQ under a duty to undertake continuous pre-publication monitoring or to anticipate every possible unlawful posting.

To impose such a requirement would amount to a form of prior restraint or pre-censorship, contrary to the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression and wholly impractical in the digital context. The operator’s duty arises only upon receiving actual or constructive notice of the unlawful material, and failure to act within a reasonable time thereafter may attract liability.

As (per Tengku Maimun CJ at [62]–[64]): “It would be wholly unrealistic to impose on the operator of a news portal a duty to pre-monitor and pre-censor comments before publication. To do so would amount to prior restraint and is inconsistent with the constitutional protection of freedom of speech. However, once the operator has notice of the existence of a comment that is clearly unlawful, failure to remove it expeditiously may give rise to liability.”

In this light, I believe the Third Defendant’s role as an intermediary warrants a calibrated response, a proportionate “notice-and-takedown” obligation at the interlocutory stage sufficiently balances the competing interests of reputation and expression without imposing an undue prior-restraint burden. S/N kor3DkdGPkiHtWtYIizoQQ F.

For the reasons above, I hold that Enclosure 4 is partially meritorious.

Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

(a) The Plaintiff is granted prohibitory injunctions restraining the Defendants from continuing to publish, disseminate, or republish the specific Impugned Contents identified in the Statement of Claim.

(b) The Plaintiff’s prayers for mandatory injunctions compelling closure of the Impugned Channels, closure of any future channels, and disclosure of administrator details are refused at this stage, without prejudice to the Plaintiff’s right to pursue such relief at trial.

(c) Costs of this application shall be costs in the cause.

(d) The interim orders made ex parte on 13.6.2025 are varied accordingly.

In summary, the Plaintiff has demonstrated a serious issue and irreparable harm justifying interlocutory restraint. The Court must, however, calibrate the relief to ensure proportionality. Interim prohibitory relief is warranted, but mandatory relief of a final nature must await the full trial. S/N kor3DkdGPkiHtWtYIizoQQ Date : 21st October 2025 ……………………………………………… (YA PUAN MAHAZAN BINTI MAT TAIB) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR For The Plaintiff : Datuk Sankara Nair & Wong Guo Jin Messrs. S N Nair & Partners Advocates & Solicitors For The Defendant 3 : Dato’ Dr Abd. Shukor Ahmad & Daniel Bock Jr Wei Messrs. Shukor Baljit & Partners Advocates & Solicitors S/N kor3DkdGPkiHtWtYIizoQQ