He said the decision by the nine-member bench, chaired by Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, concluded that under the Malaysian constitution, it is Parliament that has primacy over criminal law.

“Though the state legislative assemblies can enact offences against the precepts of Islam, that legislative power does not extend to matters that Parliament can make criminal law under the Federal List,” said Malik.

The bench allowed a declaration by a 35-year-old man that Section 28 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment is void or unconstitutional since the state legislature is incompetent to pass the provision.

Malik, who appeared with A Surendra Ananth, said the ruling served to limit the power of the state legislative assembly to enact offences against the precepts of Islam.

“To be clear, that preclusion applies as long as Parliament can make criminal law on the subject and is not confined to where Parliament has made law,” he said.

He said the apex court has addressed the misconception that there were two parallel systems of criminal law of equal standing.

“The court has clarified that there is one system of general criminal law, applicable to all persons, and another system of purely religious law in which offences can only relate to matters of religion,” he said.

Meanwhile lawyer Philip Koh said the ruling clarified to a large extent the boundaries between state and federal legislatures as laid down under the Federal Constitution.

He said Chief Judge of Malaya Azahar Mohamed’s concurrent judgment made an analytical distinction between religious offences like zina and drinking of alcohol from that of the Penal Code.

“This decision is very welcomed by citizens as demonstrative of an insightful judicial construction of the text of our nation’s beloved constitution,” he said.