Skip to main content

Malaysian Legal System

Brief Introduction

Malaysia has a unified judicial system, and all courts take cognizance of both federal and state laws. The legal system is founded on British common law. Most cases come before magistrates and sessions courts. Religious courts decide questions of Islamic law and custom. The Federal Court, the highest court in Malaysia, reviews decisions referred from the High Court of Peninsular Malaysia, the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak, and subordinate courts. The Federal Court, of which the yang dipertuan agong is lord president, has original jurisdiction in disputes among states or between a state and the federal government. The Federal Court consists of the chief justice, the two chief judges from the High Courts, and seven other judges. Administrative detention is permitted in security cases, in which certain other guarantees of due process are reportedly suspended.
The judiciary has traditionally functioned with a high degree of independence. Most civil and criminal cases are fair and open. The accused must be brought before a judge within 24 hours of arrest. Defendants have the right to counsel and to bail. Strict rules of evidence apply in court and appeal is available to higher courts. Criminal defendants may also appeal for clemency to the paramount ruler or to the local state ruler. Severe penalties, including the death penalty, are imposed for drug-related offenses.
High courts have jurisdiction over all serious criminal cases and most civil cases. The sessions courts hear the cases involving landlord-tenant disputes and car accidents. Magistrates' courts hear criminal cases in which the maximum sentence does not exceed 12 months. The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over high court and sessions court decisions.
Judicial Authority – Source of Case Law

The Judiciary is empowered to hear and determine civil and criminal matters, and to decide on the legality of any legislative or executive acts as provided under Article 125A of the Federal Constitution. It is also conferred authority by law to interpret the Federal and State Constitutions. The courts can pronounce on the validity or otherwise of any law passed by parliament and they can pronounce on the meaning of any provision of the constitution. The jurisdiction of the Malaysian courts is determined by the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 for Superior Courts and the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 for Subordinate Courts

The Malaysian Courts of Justice are made up of the Superior Courts and the Subordinate Courts. The Superior Courts comprise of the Federal Court (the highest court), the Court of Appeal and the two High Courts. By virtue of Act 121(1) of the Federal Constitution judicial power in the Federation is vested on two High Courts of Coordinate jurisdiction and status namely the High Court of Malaya for Peninsular Malaysia and the High Court of Borneo for Sabah and Sarawak.

The Federal Court of Malaysia is the Supreme Court and highest judicial authority in the country as well as the final court of appeal in Malaysia. Before 1957, the name "Supreme Court" was used to refer to the highest court for Malaysia next below the Privy Council. The Supreme Court was renamed the Federal Court of Malaysia effective from 24 June 1994, and is now the final court of appeal for Malaysia. The Federal Court reviews decisions referred from the Court of Appeal; it has original jurisdiction in constitutional matters and in disputes between states or between the federal government and a state. Before 1 January 1985, the Federal Court was the highest court in the country but its decisions were further appealable to the Privy Council in London. However, on 1 January 1978, Privy Council appeals in criminal and constitutional matters were abolished and on 1 January 1985, all other appeals i.e. civil appeals, except those filed before that date, were abolished.

The Subordinate Courts in Peninsular Malaysia consist of the Sessions Court, Magistrates' Court and the Penghulu's Courts. The Subordinate Courts in Sabah and Sarawak consist of the Sessions Court, Magistrates' Courts and Native Courts. In the hierarchy of Subordinate Courts the lowest is the Penghulu’s Court. A Penghulu is a headman appointed by a
state government. The criminal jurisdiction of a Penghulu’s Court is limited to the trial of offences of a minor nature which can be adequately punished by a fine not exceeding RM25.00. In addition to the above, there is also a Juvenile Court for offenders below the age of 18.

All members of judiciary are appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister and after consultation with the Conference of Rulers. The number of Judges is fixed by the Constitution. The head of the judiciary is the Chief Justice of the Federal Court and he exercises direct supervision over all courts. Currently, the law provides seven other judges of the Federal Court, besides the Chief Justice of Malaysia, the President of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judge of Malaya, the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak; ten judges for the Court of Appeal, forty-seven Judges for the High Court in Malaya; ten judges in the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak; and eleven Judicial Commissioners in the High Court in Malaya, and two in the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak, although this may be altered by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by way of an order.

Selected court cases are reported in any of three major law reports in Malaysia e.g. Malayan Law Journal (MLJ – 1932 to current), Current Law Journal (CLJ - 1982 to current) and All Malaysia Reports (AMR – 1992 to current). Only a small portion of latest cases of the superior courts are available in the Court website as below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Smart Security, Free Society: Malaysia’s Data Dilemma

In today’s digitally driven world, national security is no longer confined to borders or traditional threats. Cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and asymmetric warfare have become the new frontiers of conflict. Malaysia, strategically located in Southeast Asia and increasingly exposed to regional tensions and internal vulnerabilities, must strengthen its security apparatus. However, doing so must not come at the cost of civil liberties. Malaysia can enhance its security strategy by leveraging insights from advanced data platforms like those pioneered by Palantir Technologies, while maintaining strong democratic oversight to safeguard the fundamental freedoms protected by the Federal Constitution. Palantir Technologies, a U.S.-based company, gained prominence in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Its core software, Gotham, was designed to integrate fragmented intelligence and provide real-time, actionable insights to military and intelligence agencies. Over the years,...

Syringe Attacks in Malaysia and France: Random Violence or Terrorism? - Part 3

The syringe attack on the 12-year-old son of Pandan MP and former Economy Minister, Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli, has shaken Malaysia. What initially appeared as a rare and bizarre incident now echoes a disturbing pattern witnessed abroad, notably in France. In June 2025, during the Fête de la Musique festival, over 145 people across France reported being pricked with syringes in crowded public areas. In both cases, the weapon of fear was not a gun or bomb but a syringe. When viewed together, the Rafizi incident and the mass needle attacks in France reveal an alarming global trend of unconventional, psychological violence that leaves behind not just physical uncertainty but emotional trauma. The question we must now ask is: are these acts simply random criminality, or should they be treated with the gravity of terrorist attacks? A Pattern Beyond Borders In France, the attacks spanned multiple cities, with 13 confirmed cases in Paris alone. Victims included women, men, and even min...

Constitution of Malaysia: An Introduction Part 5

7 (1) No person shall be punished for an act or omission which was not punishable by law when it was done or made, and no person shall suffer greater punishment for an offence than was prescribed by law at the time it was committed. (2) A person who has been acquitted or convicted of an offence shall not be tried again for the same offence except where the conviction or acquittal has been quashed and a retrial ordered by a court superior to that by which he was acquitted or convicted.