Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General [2012] SGHC 74

Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General [2012] SGHC 74
High Court — Originating Summons No 196 of 2012
Philip Pillai J 30 March 2012; 3 April 2012
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Leave Application under O 53 of the Rules of Court; 09 April 2012; Philip Pillai J:

1 This was an application for leave under O 53 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) (“ROC”) to apply for:
(a) Declarations (“Declarations”):
(i) That the Prime Minister does not have unfettered discretion in deciding whether to announce by-elections in Hougang Single Member Constituency (“SMC”) (“the First Declaration”); and
(ii) That the Prime Minister does not have unfettered discretion to decide when to announce by-elections in Hougang SMC and must do so within three months or within such reasonable time as this Honourable Court deems fit (“the Second Declaration”); and (b) A Mandatory Order enjoining the Prime Minister to advise the President to issue a Writ of Election mandating by-elections in Hougang SMC pursuant to Article 49(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) and Section 24(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218,2011 Rev Ed) and to tender such advice within three months or within such reasonable time as the Honourable Court deems fit (“the Mandatory Order”).

2 I heard parties in chambers on the issue of leave on 30 March 2012. I directed counsel for the applicant to delete two headings in his Originating Summons No 196 of 2012 (“OS”): Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs and others and other appeals [1988] 2 SLR (R) 525 and Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217A (III) (“UDHR”). Whilst counsel is at liberty to make submissions based on court decisions, the OS title reference to a particular case is unnecessary. The UDHR, not having been enacted as Singapore legislation, is not domestic law to which these proceedings relate. Accordingly such OS title reference is misleading. Counsel for the applicant agreed to do so.

3 On 2 April 2012, I granted leave for a substantive judicial review hearing. On 4 April 2012, the Attorney-General (“AG”) appealed against my decision to grant leave. I now state my reasons for granting leave.

The rest is at: http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/...utm_medium=web
========
At/ related:
10Apr2012: Hougang resident files court application for PM Lee to call by-election