Glorya a/p Kuppa v Ketua Pengarah Pendaftaran Negara & Ors

Appellant(s): Glorya A/P Kuppa

Respondent(s):

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

• YA Datuk Azhahari Kamal bin Ramli
• YA Dato' Faizah Binti Jamaludin
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz

• The appellant was found abandoned at a bus station in Pahang in 1997, medically estimated to be about one year old (with the police report stating one and a half years old), and was subsequently raised by Malaysian citizens who later formally adopted her.
• A late birth certificate was issued recording her citizenship status as "Belum Ditentukan", and after the adoption order a new birth certificate was issued recording her status as "Bukan Warganegara"; her application for registration as a citizen under Article 15A was rejected.
• The appellant commenced originating summons proceedings seeking declarations that she is a Malaysian citizen by operation of law under Article 14(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution, which the High Court dismissed.

• Whether section 19B of Part III of the Second Schedule (presumption for a "new born child found exposed") applied to the appellant, given she was approximately one to one-and-a-half years old when found.
• Whether the appellant established citizenship by operation of law under section 1(a) of Part II of the Second Schedule (parent being a citizen/permanent resident at time of birth) or under section 1(e) read with section 2(3) (not born a citizen of any other country).
• Whether the adoption order and the adoptive parents' Malaysian citizenship could confer citizenship by operation of law on the appellant, and whether the "Bukan Warganegara" entry amounted to unlawful deprivation of citizenship under Articles 24–27.

• The Court held that section 19B did not apply because its protective presumption is confined to a "new born child" found exposed, and on the evidence the appellant was already about one year old (or older) when found, not newly born; the words "new born child" are words of limitation that cannot be judicially enlarged even under a purposive approach.
• The appellant failed to establish citizenship under section 1(a) (no evidence of her biological parents' citizenship or residency status at the time of birth) or under section 1(e)/section 2(3) (no evidence excluding acquisition of foreign citizenship by descent), following the approach in prior Court of Appeal authorities on unknown parentage cases.
• The adoption order and the adoptive parents' citizenship did not confer citizenship by operation of law, as adoption under the Adoption Act 1952 does not retrospectively alter parentage for constitutional purposes; the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, though the Court noted the appellant remained free to pursue citizenship by naturalisation under Article 19.