The Federal Court has dismissed a judicial review application filed by civil society groups challenging the removal of Bukit Cherakah’s protected forest status by the Selangor state government. The application was brought by Pertubuhan Pelindung Khazanah Alam Malaysia (Peka) and Shah Alam Community Forest Society (SACF).
In a split 2-1 decision, the majority comprising Court of Appeal president Datuk Abu Bakar Jais and Federal Court judge Datuk Rhodzariah Bujang ruled against granting leave for the judicial review. Federal Court judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng dissented, suggesting that the NGOs raised issues that warranted judicial examination. No order as to costs was made.
The NGOs had sought to quash a 2022 degazettement measure opening more than 400 hectares of Bukit Cherakah forest reserve for development, arguing that it was illegal for the Selangor government to backdate the gazette. The degazettement notice was officially published in May 2022 but was backdated to November 20, 2000. This delayed publication meant that the public, including environmental groups, were not informed in time to object.
The forest reserve is home to indigenous communities and is a popular area for hikers. The NGOs contended that the backdating bypassed procedural safeguards, violated the National Forestry Act 1984, and failed to provide replacement forest land, while no public inquiry was conducted as required by law after 2011.
The Selangor government argued that it acted within its legal authority to gazette and degazette land and that development approvals had already been granted prior to 2022. The ruling affects contentious development projects in the area, including a road cutting through SACF land, as well as mixed development by Restu Mantap Sdn Bhd and contractor YCH Construction Sdn Bhd.
Amicus curiae submissions were made by the Malaysian Bar and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), advising the court on legal and environmental matters.
What I Learned
This case demonstrates that judicial review applications can be blocked at the leave stage if the majority of the court finds that the matter does not warrant judicial intervention, even when environmental and procedural concerns exist.
I also learned that backdating government gazettes can create legal challenges, particularly for environmental and community stakeholders, as it may limit public awareness and participation. However, courts often defer to the statutory authority of the state to manage land use, balancing procedural objections against legal powers.
Finally, the case illustrates the role of amicus curiae in providing expert perspectives on environmental and legal issues, ensuring that courts consider broader societal and ecological impacts even when the main parties’ claims are dismissed. This highlights the complex interplay between environmental advocacy, statutory authority, and procedural law in Malaysia.
Malaysia