A group of Universiti Malaya (UM) staff members failed to obtain leave from the Federal Court to appeal a ruling that upheld the Malaysian government’s compulsory Covid-19 vaccination mandate for public servants. A three-judge panel ruled that the applicants did not meet the threshold requirements under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 to proceed with the appeal.
The decision effectively ends the legal challenge against the October 18, 2021, circular issued by the Public Service Department (PSD) director-general. This directive mandated Covid-19 vaccinations for all public service employees, including staff at local authorities and statutory bodies. As a result of the dismissed application, Justice Datuk Rhodzariah Bujang ordered each applicant to pay RM25,000 in costs to the government and RM15,000 to the UM registrar.
The panel of judges included Justice Datuk Rhodzariah Bujang, Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh, and Datuk Azmi Ariffin. The court’s refusal to grant leave means the previous rulings by the High Court and the Court of Appeal stand as the final legal word on the mandate’s validity for these employees.
Why the Federal Court dismissed the vaccination mandate appeal
The Federal Court dismissed the application because the staff members failed to satisfy the legal requirements for leave to appeal. Under the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, applicants must demonstrate that their case raises a point of law of general public importance or a novel legal question to move to the highest court.
During the proceedings, lawyer Adrian Yeow Way Thiam, representing the applicants, requested leave for the court to determine five specific questions of law. However, the court found these questions insufficient to warrant a hearing. Senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin argued that the proposed questions had no direct bearing on the primary remedies the applicants were seeking in their original judicial review.
Raja Eileen Soraya Raja Aman, the lawyer representing the UM registrar, added that the questions presented by the staff were not novel and did not introduce any new points of law that required the Federal Court’s intervention.
The timeline of the legal challenge against the PSD circular
The legal battle began shortly after the government issued its vaccination directive in late 2021. The process moved through three levels of the Malaysian judiciary over nearly three years:
- October 27, 2021: UM staff and several government school teachers filed a judicial review application against six respondents, including the health minister, education minister, and the Malaysian government.
- May 2022: The High Court initially granted leave for the group to commence the judicial review.
- December 14, 2023: After hearing the merits, the High Court dismissed the application. The court ruled that the compulsory vaccination directive was “lawful, reasonable and rational.”
- January 7, 2024: The Court of Appeal dismissed the subsequent appeal by the staff.
- Final Ruling: The Federal Court denied the final application for leave to appeal.
While the UM staff pursued the case to the final court, the teachers involved in the original 2021 filing chose not to pursue the matter beyond the Court of Appeal.
Who was affected by the compulsory vaccination directive?
The circular issued on October 18, 2021, by the Public Service Department director-general was broad in scope. It targeted all employees within the public service. The mandate specifically extended to cover employees of statutory bodies and local authorities, ensuring that those in quasi-governmental roles were also required to be vaccinated against Covid-19.
The applicants sought to quash this circular, arguing against the compulsory nature of the vaccination. By ruling the directive “lawful, reasonable and rational,” the courts affirmed the government’s authority to implement health mandates for its workforce during a public health emergency.
The financial penalties imposed by Justice Rhodzariah—totaling RM40,000 per applicant—underscore the court’s position on the merits of the application and the costs incurred by the government and the university registrar during the protracted litigation.
With the Federal Court’s refusal to hear the case, there are no further legal avenues for this group to challenge the 2021 vaccination circular. For more information on current Malaysian public health policies, employees may refer to official bulletins from the Ministry of Health Malaysia.
Do you have thoughts on the balance between individual autonomy and public health mandates in the workplace? Share this article and leave a comment below.