Surinder Singh Kanda v Federation of Malaya
Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
Surinder Singh Kanda v. The Government of the Federation of Malaya (1962) 28 MLJ 169.
Background
Officer Surinder Singh Kanda " was supplied with a report of the board of inquiry. The question arose whether the hearing by adjudicating officer was vitiated by Insp. Kanda not being given any opportunity of correcting or contradicting the report."[1]
Findings
Lord Denning noted that <templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />
In a conflict of this kind between the existing law and the Constitution, the Constitution must prevail. The court must apply the existing law with such modifications as may be necessary to bring it into accord with the Constitution.[2]
It also defined constitutional rights <templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />
If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused person to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him: and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them.[3]
References
- ↑ Ang- vs -The Royal Malaysian Police Commission - Court of Appeals, Malaysia
- ↑ Selangor- vs-Sagong Tasi - COURT OF APPEAL, MALAYSIA
- ↑ DALAM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN DI KUALA LUMPUR - Malaysian Courts Of Malaysia
External links
- Legal Aid: A Facet of Equality before the Law - The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Oct., 1963), pp. 1133-1164
- Constitutional Problems of Malaysia - The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Oct., 1964), pp. 1349-1367
<templatestyles src="Asbox/styles.css"></templatestyles>
 |
This case law article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
<templatestyles src="Asbox/styles.css"></templatestyles>
 |
This Malaysia-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
