Global Freedom of Expression

Muhamad Juzaili Bin Mohd Khamis v. State Government of Negeri Sembilan

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Non-verbal Expression
  • Date of Decision
    November 7, 2014
  • Outcome
    Law or Action Overturned or Deemed Unconstitutional
  • Case Number
  • Region & Country
    Malaysia, Asia and Asia Pacific
  • Judicial Body
    Appellate Court
  • Type of Law
    Criminal Law, Constitutional Law
  • Themes
    Gender Expression
  • Tags
    Discrimination, Sexuality

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

Freedom of speech can include expressive conduct such as cross dressing. A law that criminalized the act of cross dressing by Muslim men was held unconstitutional by an appeals court as violating several provisions of the Malaysian Constitution. This included violations of the right to life, livelihood, equal protection, and freedom of speech.


The appellants in this case (three Muslim men with Gender Identity Disorder) sought a declaration that Section 66 of the Syariah Criminal Enactment of 1992 was unconstitutional. Section 66 “makes it an offense for any Muslim male person to do any of the following in a public place: to wear a woman’s attire, or to pose as a woman.” The Court first looked at whether Gender Identity Disorder (GID) was a legitimate disorder and concluded that indeed it was. “The evidence furnished by the appellants, therefore, establish that GID is an attribute of the appellants’ nature that they did not choose and cannot change; and that much harm would be caused to them should they be punished for merely exhibiting a manifestation of GID, i.e., cross-dressing.” The High Court of Seremban dismissed the application and appellants appealed.

Decision Overview

First, the Court examined Article 5(1) of the Constitution. Art 5(1) of the Federal Constitution “guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty save in accordance with law.” The Court found that Section 66 interfered with appellants’ right to live with dignity guaranteed to them by Article 5 of the Constitution. Therefore, Section 66 of the law was unconstitutional.

Second, the Court noted that the right to life included livelihood and quality of life. The effect of this provision prevented appellants from moving in public places and to their places of work because they were subject to prosecution under this act if they cross dressed in public. Therefore, this provision also infringed upon appellants’ right to life and was thus unconstitutional.

The Court then turned to Article 8(1) and 8(2) of the Constitution which “guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law.” The Court recognized that Muslims suffering from GID were unequal to non-GID Muslim males, and therefore, under Article 8, Section 66 was unconstitutional. The Court also discussed some Indian cases that had held unequal treatment of persons similarly situated was unconstitutional. Furthermore, Article 8 additionally prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender. The Court ruled that Section 66 was also inconsistent with a prohibition on gender because it only prohibits males from cross dressing, not females.

The Court also discussed whether Section 66 was inconsistent with Article 9(2) of the Constitution which guarantees freedom of movement. The Court held that Section 66 does not just restrict appellants’ freedom of movement, but denies the appellants the right to move freely in public places. Therefore, Section 66 also violated Article 9 of the Constitution.

Finally, the Court analyzed whether Section 66 violated Article 10(2) of the Constitution which guarantees freedom of expression. The Court noted that the manner in which a person dresses can be a form of symbolic speech. Only the Parliament in Malaysia has the power to restrict freedom of speech and expression, and therefore this law was not within the power of the State Legislative Assemblies. Moreover, any restriction of freedom of expression must be reasonable and the Court held that this provision was clearly unreasonable. Therefore, Section 66 was unconstitutional because it violated several provisions of the Constitution.

Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

This case expands expression by invalidating a law that criminalized the cross dressing of Muslim men. This opinion takes an expansive view of speech, quoting Tinker v. Des Moines, stating that freedom of speech includes the right to express oneself through symbolic conduct. This includes the right to dress as a woman.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • Malay., Constitution of Malaysia (1957).

    Article 5(1): “guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty save in accordance with law.”
    Article 8(1) and (2): “guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law.”
    Article 9(2): guarantees freedom of movement
    Article 10(2): guarantees freedom of expression

  • Other freedoms may be encompassed within the life and personal liberty limbs of Article 5.

  • Malay., Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam Hospital Besar Pulau Pinang v. Utra Badi K Perumah [2000] 3 CLJ 224 Gopal Sri Ram JCA

    “Life” under Article 5 includes the right to live with dignity.

  • Malay., Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan v. Nordin Salleh [1992] 1 CLJ 72

    Only Parliament has the power to restrict freedom of speech and expression.

  • India, National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014), 5 SCC 438

    Transgender community sought a legal declaration that non-recognition of their gender identity violated the constitution. The Court agreed stating “discrimination on the basis of … gender identity includes any discrimination, restriction or preference, which has the effect of nullifying or transposing equality by the law or the equal protection of laws guaranteed under the constitution.”

Other national standards, law or jurisprudence

  • India, Coralie v. Union of India AIR [1981] SC 746

    “But the question which arises is whether the right to life is limited only to protection of limb or faculty or does it go further and embrace something more. We think that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and commingling with fellow human beings.”

  • India, Venkateshwara Theatre v. State of Andra Pradesh and Ors [1993] 3 SCR 616

    “Just as a difference in treatment of persons similarly situate leads to discrimination, so also discrimination can arise if persons who are unequals, that is to say, are differently placed, are treated similarly.”

  • U.S., Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

    “In Tinker, it was held that a school regulation which prohibited students from wearing black armbands to silently protest against the United State’s Government’s policy in Vietnam was violative of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guaranteed free speech.”

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:

Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:

Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback