In the application for leave for judicial review, the state government is seeking to nullify the notice of re-delineation by the EC in the state. The application argues the EC violated the Federal Constitution in drawing its new electoral boundaries for the redelineation exercise.
The Selangor government also wants a declaration that the notice was lacking in details and would cause voters, local authorities or the state government to be unable to exercise their constitutional right to file representations.
The Selangor government also wants the court to quash the EC’s notice and an order to direct it to publish a fresh notice on the proposed exercise.
The legal challenge named the EC, its’ chairman Mohd Hashim Abdullah, and secretary Abdul Ghani Salleh as respondents.
The judicial review was filed on Wednesday at the High Court registry by Daim & Gamany, acting for the Selangor government.
Menteri Besar Mohamed Azmin Ali told a press conference at the state secretariat yesterday that his administration would be filing the judicial review. He alleged there was “malapportionment and serious gerrymandering”.
EC published an 18-page notice in major newspapers last month on the proposed re-delineation, changing the names of 12 parliamentary seats and 34 state seats in six states.
Sarawakian voters See Chee How and Pauls Baya also filed a similar judicial review last year on the EC’s proposed re-delineation exercise in the state, seeking to nullify the proposed exercise.
The High Court allowed the judicial review and ruled the recommendations were not sufficient enough in details. It ordered the EC to republish the notice.
The court had also nullified the exercise as it was not done according to the 13th Schedule in the Federal Constitution.
The EC won its appeal at the Court of Appeal, which ruled that details need not be disclosed.
The EC then gazetted its recommended redelineation for Sarawak in August last year, despite all legal avenues to nullify the exercise not having been exhausted.
In Oct last year, the duo were denied leave to appeal at the Federal Court as the issue had become “academic”.