Judge Mohd Firuz Jaffril said the suit was no longer sustainable as the Federal Court had acquitted Karpal of the charge early this year.
“The originating summons is academic as Karpal’s case is no longer a live issue,” he said.
Firuz had earlier also allowed the CJ’s application to remove almost all the contents of an explosive affidavit filed by Court of Appeal judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer in support of Sangeet’s suit.
“The affidavit is scandalous, vexatious and frivolous,” he said, adding that some of the averments in the document were mere hearsay.
He said the affidavit had no nexus to the relief sought by Sangeet in her action against the CJ.
“It is not for this court to decide on the truth or otherwise of the affidavit,” he said.
In an immediate response, Sangeet said she would reserve the right to appeal both decisions by Firuz.
“I have 30 days from today to file notices of appeal,” she told FMT.
Sangeet, in her action in January to sue anyone holding the post of chief justice, said the then top judge Richard Malanjum had failed to defend and preserve the integrity of the judiciary.
Her legal challenge came about after lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla claimed last year that the outcome of Karpal’s sedition appeal in 2016 in the Court of Appeal was altered due to judicial interference.
Haniff claimed he was informed that a senior judge, who has since retired, reportedly meddled in the majority decision to allow Karpal’s appeal and acquit him of the charge.
Judges Mohtarudin Baki and Kamardin Hashim were in the majority to retain the conviction by the High Court while Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, the present chief justice, dissented.
Sangeet subsequently lodged a police report that triggered an investigation that has yet to be concluded.
However, early this year, a five-member Federal Court bench allowed an appeal brought by Karpal’s widow, Gurmeet Kaur, and thereby also upheld Tengku Maimun’s findings.
Karpal died in a road accident on April 17, 2014.
Hamid, who affirmed his affidavit on Feb 14, alleged that senior judges had intervened in the decision of numerous appeals, including Karpal’s sedition appeal.
He claimed some judges had abetted in scams carried out by nominees of politicians who had entered into contracts with the government.
He also claimed that once the government pulled out of a deal, the private parties would take the government to court to claim compensation.