AK & Anor v Ketua Pengarah Pendaftaran Negara & Ors

Appellant(s):

• Ak
• AFMK(Applying as litigation representatives of LSK, a child)

Respondent(s):

• Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara
• Menteri Dalam Negeri Malaysia
• Kerajaan Malaysia

• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin
• YA Dato' Faizah Binti Jamaludin
• YA Dato' Hajah Aliza binti Sulaiman

• The appellants, British citizens, sought a declaration under Article 14(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution that a child they later adopted was a Malaysian citizen by operation of law, having been abandoned as a newborn in Seremban in 2012 and handed to an intermediary who arranged her placement with them.
• The child's birth certificate recorded her as a non-citizen, with no biological parents identified; the birth mother's identity and residency status remained unknown despite investigations, including a "telling coincidence" involving clinic records of another woman that the attending doctor did not confirm as connected to the child.
• The High Court dismissed the originating summons, finding "strong evidence" of an intentional handover to the intermediary but holding this was inconsistent with a finding of abandonment under section 19B of Part III of the Second Schedule.

• Whether the constitutional term "found exposed" in section 19B, as construed in the Federal Court's decision in CCH, extends to a newborn intentionally and permanently surrendered by her birth mother to a responsible intermediary, rather than left unattended in a public place.
• Whether the evidentiary foundation for invoking section 19B's presumptions (that the child was abandoned) was established, and whether the resulting statutory presumption of the mother's permanent residence was rebutted by the Respondents.
• The correct allocation and operation of burdens of proof under section 19B, including the distinction between foundational facts (borne by the claimant) and rebuttal of statutory presumptions (borne by the State).

• The Court held that section 19B is concerned with the substance and finality of abandonment, not the physical manner or location of relinquishment; a direct, safe handover to an intermediary neither establishes nor precludes abandonment, and the High Court erred in law by treating intentional handover as legally incompatible with abandonment.
• Applying CCH, the Court found that the cumulative evidence—an intentional and final relinquishment by the birth mother for permanent placement, no retained parental role, no intention to return, and no reliable identifying or tracing particulars—established abandonment, notwithstanding inconsistencies in peripheral details of the handover account.
• As the foundational facts were proved and the Respondents failed to rebut the statutory presumption of the mother's permanent residence (mere coincidence with unrelated clinic records being insufficient), the child satisfied both the jus soli and jus sanguinis limbs of section 1(a); the appeal was allowed, the High Court's order set aside, and declarations of citizenship granted with directions to reissue her documentation.