JUSTICE EQUALITY FREEDOM

ISSUE Whether … is Whether … is considered equal *Depends on

considered just or or unequal. question*
unjust.
CONCEPT Justice is putting Equality is the quality of being Justice is the
something at its same in condition of being
place, fairness in quantity/measure/value/status. free. Justice is a right
distribution of It is a state of being essentially or power to decide
resources. equal/equivalent and equally for oneself what to
balanced. do and how to live.
Natural justice is Justice is used
procedural interchangeably with
safeguard against liberty without legal
improper exercise restrictions and the
of power by a public absence of
authority. impediment.
2 JURIST OPINION Bentham stated According to Bentham, nobody Based on John Lock,
that justice refers to should be taken as an no one ought to harm
maximum instrument of somebody’s will. another in life,
happiness of healthy,
maximum number Ronald Dworkin stated that liberty/possession.
of people. equality and liberty as joined
together. People must be Kent stated that
Aristotle said that allowed to live freely within the morality arises and
justice is treating resources they have. can only arise from
equal equally, freedom.
unequal equally, in
proportion to their
inequality.
ARTICLE Article 135(2) of Article 8 of Federal Constitution Either Article 10 or
Federal constitution states that there shall be no Article 11 (based on
states that no discrimination against citizens issue)
member of such a on the ground only of religion,
service as aforesaid race, descent or place of birth. Article 10 of Federal
shall be dismissed Constitution states
or reduced in rank that every citizen has
without being given the right to freedom
a reasonable of speech and
opportunity of expression, to
being heard. assemble peacefully
and without any arms
and to form
associations.

OR
 Article 11 of Federal
Constitution states
that every person has
a right to profess and
practice his religion
and subject to clause
(4), to propagate it.

CASE LAW 2 Components of 1. Beatrice Fernandes V Article 10

Natural Justice: Sistem Penerbangan Datuk Yong Teck Lee
Malaysia (2005) V Public Prosecutor &
1. Audi Alteram Anor (1986)
Partem (Right to be Fact: The applicant was a flight
heard): stewardess who had served As for freedom to
MAS for 11 years. The terms assemble a permit is
Surrinder Singh and conditions of her service prerequisite, the
Kanda V were governed by a collective applicant for a permit
Government of the agreement required an air has to satisfy the
Federation of stewardess too resign if she police prejudicial to
Malaya (1962) 28 became pregnant but refused the interest of
MLJ 16. to resign. MAS then terminated security or that it will
her services. not excite
Facts: Officer disturbance of the
Surinder Singh Held: Article 8 of Federal peace.
Kanda was supplied Constitution did not apply in
with a report of the contractual agreement in OR
board of inquiry. private sector. Discrimination
The question arose for barred a pregnancy Article 11
whether the stewardess to work has Lina Joy V Majlis
hearing by allowed. The Training Agama Islam & Anor
adjudication officer Agreement, which deems a (2004)
was vitiated by Insp. female employee who becomes
Kanda not being pregnant during the training Fact: Lina Joy was a
given any period to have committed a muslim, at the age of
opportunity of repudiatory breach of the 26, she converted
correcting or Training Agreement is valid and into Christianity and
contradicting the enforceable. wanted to change her
report. name from Azlina
2. Noorfadilla Ahmad Binti Jailani to Lina
Held: If the right to Saikin V Cahyed Joy. Her application
be heard is to be a Basirun & Ors (2015) was rejected for the
real right which is first time and she
worth anything, it Fact: The legal question in made another
must carry with a Noorfadilla’s case enrose when application to change
right in the accused the Malaysian Government her name and remove
person to know the revoked and withdrew her the word ‘Islam’ from
case which is made appointment as a Guru the new identity card
against him. He Sandaran because she was and application was
must know what pregnant. unsuccessful.
evidence has been
given and what The High Court held the refusal Held: Freedom of
statements have to employ a woman on the religion under 11(1) is
been made grounds for pregnancy alone is subject to Article
affecting him: and a form of gender discrimination 11(4) and 11(5)
then he must be and unconstitutional under because issue of
given a fair Article 8 of the Federal apostasy or change of
opportunity to Constitution. An appeal by the religion is directly
correct or Government against this connected with the
contradict them. decision was subsequently rights and obligations
withdrawn and the matter was of the person as a
laid to rest, or so it seemed. Muslim and this falls
2. Nemo Judex In under the jurisdiction
Causa Sua (The of Syariah Court.
adjucator should be
impartial and
neutral):

Dimes V Grand
Junction Canal

Facts: A public
limited company
filed a case against
landowner in a
matter largely
involving the
interests of the
company.

Held:
The Lord Chancellor
who was a
shareholder in the
company heard the
case and gave the
desired relief to the
company.

The decision was,

however, quashed
by the House of
Lords because of
the Lord
Chancellor’s
pecuniary interest
 in the company.

Lord Campbell in his

opinion
emphasized, “while
no one could
suppose that the
Lord Chancellor was
in the remotest
degree influenced
in his decision by
his interest in the
company,
nevertheless, it was
necessary that the
maxim no one is to
be judge in his own
case cause be held
sacred”

APPLICATION
CONCLUSION …. Is considered …. Is considered equal/unequal
just/unjust based based on …
on …