Velmurugan v Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Malaysia & Ors

Appellant(s): Velmurugan

Respondent(s):

• Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara
• Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN)
• Kerajaan Malaysia

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

• The appellant's birth was registered late in 2011, 24 years after his birth, with his citizenship status recorded as "unknown" and his mother's status recorded as "non-citizen" following an investigation marked by inconsistent witness testimony.
• The first respondent later approved registration of the appellant's mother's particulars but recorded her citizenship status as "not determined" due to unresolved discrepancies regarding her birthplace and family details, despite her siblings being Malaysian citizens.
• The first respondent rejected an application to amend the appellant's citizenship status to "citizen" (while allowing inclusion of his mother's birth certificate particulars), prompting the appellant to seek judicial review (certiorari and mandamus) and a declaration of citizenship, which was dismissed by the High Court.

• Whether the appellant was entitled to citizenship by operation of law under Article 14(1)(b) read with section 1(e) of Part II of the Second Schedule, which requires proof of both jus soli and jus sanguinis.
• Whether the appellant could rely on legitimate expectation, section 2(3) of Part II of the Second Schedule, or Article 19 naturalisation to establish his citizenship claim.
• Whether the first respondent's decision rejecting the citizenship amendment was tainted by illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety so as to warrant judicial review relief.

• The Court held that jus sanguinis must be traced to the biological mother where there is no evidence of a lawful marriage between the appellant's parents, and since the appellant's mother's citizenship status remained "not determined" due to unresolved evidentiary inconsistencies, the appellant failed to establish jus sanguinis.
• The Court ruled that the citizenship status of relatives (the mother's siblings, or the appellant's own children) is irrelevant to the appellant's entitlement, as each person's citizenship must be independently established under Part III of the Federal Constitution at the time of birth; legitimate expectation does not apply as there was no promise or undertaking by the authority, and Article 19 naturalisation requires a separate application to the Federal Government, not available on appeal.
• Finding no error of law or fact by the High Court, and no illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety in the first respondent's decision, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the dismissal of the judicial review application, with no order as to costs.