The High Court in Kuala Lumpur has dismissed a leave application from Bersih 2.0 chairperson Maria Chin Abdullah to stop the present redelineation exercise.

Judicial Commissioner Azizul Azmi Adnan said today that while the application for leave was not frivolous he could not see how there was an arguable case to be made.

“I accept that the application is not frivolous, taking into account the fact that the matter for which a review is sought affects the fundamental expression of a constitutionally-guaranteed right that is the hallmark of a free democratic society, namely the right to vote.

“The applicant is also a registered voter in the relevant state and federal constituencies and hence would appear to have sufficient locus standi (legal standing) to make the application,” he said.

On the issue whether the matter could be argued, Azizul said at the leave stage, the court had to sift out unmeritorious application as it would only be possible to ascertain if Maria had an arguable case if some examination of the merits was undertaken.

“I find that the applicant does not have an arguable case. An examination of Maria's statement pursuant to order 53 Rule 3(1) of Rules of Court 2012 will reveal that the basis of the applicant's putative challenge lies wholly and entirely on the fact that the EC has not included the details of the land mass of the proposed constituencies in the notice.

“In EC chairperson vs See Chee How and another, the Court of Appeal held that Section 4(a) of the Thirteenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution does not require the EC to include in the notice the particulars of the land mass of the proposed constituencies,” he said.

Sufficient information provided

The COA also held, he said that the inclusion of the number of voters for each constituency as set out in the schedule to the notice provided sufficient information for a voter to raise questions on the weightage that was given by the commission.

"In light of this decision, the court is bound by the decision in See Chee How vs EC under the principle of stare decisis (to stand by things decided). I fail to see how it can established that the applicant has an arguable case.

Azizul said in his considered view, the judgment of the COA had fully taken into account the land mass and had made a specific finding, that such information was not necessary as per Maria's application.

See, the Sarawak assemblyperson for Batu Lintang who also challenged the EC re-delineation exercise in Sarawak last year and went to the highest court in the country, but failed.

"Hence, the application is dismissed," the JC said.

He made no order as to costs.

Maria had filed the judicial review application last month where she sought a declaration that sufficient land mass information be furnished to the public for each parliamentary and state seats.

She alleged that the EC had acted in bad faith, illegally and committed procedural impropriety when issuing the notice dated Sept 15, for redelineation to all affected constituencies.

Maria said the commission was withholding information on land mass from the public which would only be revealed to Parliament or state legislative assemblies later.

She claimed that such information was needed to enable voters to make an informed decision as there was no guarantee that Parliament or the legislative assemblies could scrutinise the EC proposals competently or effectively.

Furthermore without the information, voters could not make an effective objection as required under Section 5B of the 13th Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

Maria was represented by lawyer Syahredzan Johan while senior federal counsel Amarjeet Singh appeared for the EC.