KUALA LUMPUR (May 24): The High Court here has set June 17 to decide on an objection by the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) for leave by 18 Malaysian youths to challenge the government's action in delaying the implementation of Undi 18, a move to lower the voting age to 18 and to enable automatic voter registration (AVR).

Justice Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid will also give his decision on whether an application for a judicial review is allowed.

The youths had on behalf of the Undi 18 movement filed a judicial review application and named Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, the government and the Election Commission (EC) as respondents.

In lawsuits filed via judicial review application where the courts are asked to review the actions or decisions of a public body or the government, the applicants of the judicial review have to seek leave, or permission, from the courts for their suit to proceed and be heard.

Senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan, representing the AGC, told reporters previously that they filed a preliminary objection today on the grounds that the application brought by the 18 youths was frivolous, vexatious and premature in this stage because no action had been taken relating to the matter.

Today, lawyer representing the youths, Datuk Professor Gurdial Singh Nijar, told the judge that the judicial review is necessary and that Muhyiddin must be called to court to explain the government's decision to delay the implementation of lowering the voting age.

Prior to the filing of the lawsuit, both the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara in 2019 approved amendments to the Federal Constitution for various matters, including to enable Malaysians aged 18 to 20 to also be able to vote.

While the EC and the Malaysian government had repeatedly said previously that the implementation of the lowering of the voting age to 18 and the AVR was expected to be done by July 2021, the EC on March 25 said both matters could only be implemented after Sept 1, 2022. This then led to the filing of the court challenge by the 18 youths.

Another lawyer representing the youths, Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, argued that the government must not wait until the legislation is done. She said the constitution cannot bow to parliamentary power.

"Many promises were made (by the government) as to when it would be brought into effect. It was meant to be in July… It is almost embarrassing that we have not amended the constitution because the rest of the world has raced ahead of us," she said.

She said the government is disenfranchising the youth, after promising them that they will be able to vote.

"They are disenfranchising the youth, after giving them the promise that they will exercise the right to vote. [Whats'] worse than that, you are bending the rule of law and going against what Parliament wanted," she said.

"Parliament has decreed. You are given a date to implement it. You stick to it," she said.

On April 2, the youths filed their legal action seeking several court orders arising from the respondents' delay in implementing Undi 18.

In the application, the youths sought a declaration that the government's action to delay the enforcement of lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 was irrational, illegal, and disproportionate and a form of voter suppression.

The applicants wanted a declaration that those aged 18 to 20 have a legitimate expectation that they will have the right to vote on or before July 2021.

The youths, aged between 18 and 20, were also seeking a declaration that the decision of the respondents to delay the enforcement of Section 3(a) was a form of voter suppression against those aged 18 to 20 years in July 2021.