Counsel Joshua Andran, who confirmed the matter when contacted by Bernama, said the date was fixed during a case management before deputy registrar Maslinda Selamat.
The government filed the application for a stay pending disposal of its appeal to the Court of Appeal.
On Sept 9, judge Akhtar Tahir had ruled that children born overseas to Malaysian mothers who are married to foreigners are entitled by operation of law to be citizens of Malaysia.
Following that, the government appealed against the court’s decision.
The decision allowed a legal suit filed by the Association of Family Support & Welfare Selangor & Kuala Lumpur (Family Frontiers) and six Malaysian women who are married to foreigners for their overseas-born children to have the right to become Malaysian citizens.
They had sought a court order for all relevant government agencies to issue all documents relating to citizenship to children born abroad to Malaysian mothers with foreign spouses.
In a 24-page written judgement made available to the media today, the judge ruled that the women had locus standi to file the application and there is no abuse of court in their bringing about the action against the government.
He dismissed the government’s contention that citizenship is a privilege rather than a right and that the mothers are stopped from making a claim to citizenship for their children.
“The short reply of the court to this argument is that, even if the granting of citizenship is a privilege it must be offered without discrimination. It does not address the discrimination issue,” the judge said.
“It is noted by the court that the mothers have highlighted in their affidavits the grievances they are facing for the children not being granted citizenship.
“This includes enrolment into school, additional expenses in education, health care and many other problems. The defendants in their affidavit have not challenged any of these grievances faced by the mothers. So it is illogical to argue that only the children are aggrieved not the mothers. By not disputing the grievances faced by the plaintiffs, the defendants have accepted the grievances faced by the mothers as real and not mere conjecture,” he said.
Judge Akhtar said the court reiterated that it was not seeking to change the federal government’s policy of granting citizenship or to rewrite the law which has already been enacted by the federal government.
“What the court was endeavouring to do was applying the existing law and policy already in force in a manner which will find a remedy to the grievance of the plaintiffs. The courts are surely empowered to do this.
“The grievances of the plaintiffs are real and the defendants must not bury their head in the sand like an ostrich and state that there is no grievance or discrimination. The court has already stated that the discrimination against the mothers was apparent,” said the judge.
Judge Akhtar also concluded that Article 8(2) on equality that prohibits discrimination based on gender would also mean that the word “father” in the Federal Constitution under the Second Schedule, Part II, Section 1(b) should also include mothers and that their children are entitled to citizenship by operation of the law.
“Having regards to the anomaly that has arisen in interpreting the impugned provision literally or mechanically the court concludes that the father in the impugned provision must include the mother of the children born out of Federation,” he stressed.