Tamileswaaran A/L Ravi Kumar v Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya Malaysia & Anor

Appellant(s): Tamileswaaran A/L Ravi Kumar

Respondent(s):

• Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya Malaysia
• Kerajaan Malaysia

• YA Datuk Supang Lian
• YA Datuk Wong Kian Kheong
• YA Datuk Ismail Bin Brahim

• The appellant, a registered voter, tested positive for Covid-19 prior to the Johore State Elections and was under home quarantine.
• Despite a negative self-test result on polling day, the appellant was denied entry to the polling centre by the first respondent's officers based on a "high risk" MySejahtera status and a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).
• The appellant's application for judicial review, seeking to quash the decision and for declarations and damages, was dismissed by the High Court.

• Whether the first respondent's denial of the appellant's right to vote, based on an SOP related to Covid-19, was lawful under Article 119(1) of the Federal Constitution (FC).
• Whether the SOP and Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (National Recovery Plan) (Transition Phase to Endemic) Regulations 2022 (PCID Regulations) constitute "federal law" under Article 160(2) FC, to which the first respondent's duty to conduct elections is subject.
• Whether the right to vote is a constitutional right under Article 119(1) FC or a mere statutory right, and if monetary compensation is available for its unlawful deprivation.

• The Court held that the first respondent's decision was amenable to judicial review and that public policy considerations alone could not bar such an application, especially when an elector's right to vote has been denied.
• The Court ruled that the SOP and PCID Regulations are subsidiary legislation and do not fall within the definition of "federal law" or "Act of Parliament" in Article 160(2) FC, thus they cannot restrict the first respondent's duty or an elector's right to vote.
• The Court declared the right to vote under Article 119(1) FC a constitutional right, allowing the appeal, quashing the first respondent's decision, and granting the declarations, but declined monetary compensation as the first respondent acted in good faith.