KUALA LUMPUR (June 1) : The challenge initiated by a lawyer and an activist to invalidate the legality of the May 18 parliamentary seating has today been fixed for hearing in the High Court on July 30.
The date was fixed through an e-review between lawyer R Kenghadaran and D Arumugam's lawyer, T Gunaseelan, and senior federal counsel Mohammad Salehuddin Md Ali from the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) with the court.
The hearing was fixed before Justice Datuk Nordin Hassan.
It was understood that papers had been served to Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof.
According to Mohammad Salehuddin, the AGC had yet to decide on whether to represent Muhyiddin and Mohamad Ariff but they were comfortable with the hearing date.
Muhyiddin and Mohamad Ariff Ariff have been asked to reply to the plaintiffs' affidavit by June 22 and the plaintiffs' reply by July 6.
Justice Nordin wanted written submissions for the case to be in by July 20.
It was previously reported that Kenghadaran and Arumugam had filed an originating summons to challenge and claim the notice for the sitting issued through a letter dated May 15, which would only see the royal address by Yang di Pertuan Agong, was unconstitutional and violated the parliamentary Standing Orders as it did not fulfil Article 55 (1) of the Federal Constitution.
It would result in the first sitting in 2020 to be illusory, as no other urgent matters would be discussed as required under Order 14 (1), they said.
Article 55 (1) stipulates that Parliament has to conduct its affairs in line with Order 14 (1), whereby in a parliamentary democracy, the legislature must function according to democratic principles by allowing members in Dewan Rakyat and senators in Dewan Negara to voice their stand and views there without any hindrance.
It was incumbent on the prime minister to advise Yang di Pertuan Agong to call the parliamentary sitting to be in session in accordance with Article 55 (1), Kenghadaran and Arumugam stated.
In the affidavit filed in support of their application, Kenghadaran and Arumugam noted that the previous parliamentary session ended on Dec 19 last year and as such, another session has to be held within six months, which means it must take place by June 18.
They claimed that the May 18 proceedings did not come within the meaning of a “sitting”, “meeting” or “session” under Order 98 of the Standing Orders.