How should Professional Bodies punish multiple disciplinary offences? The principle of ‘Totality’

When a professional is found guilty of multiple misconducts, should a disciplinary body impose separate punishments for each offence, and then add them up, or just impose a single punishment for all? What if the offences occurred during the same incident, or at different times? How should the appropriate punishment be decided?

Read More

Why did India’s greatest legal mind refuse the Chief Justiceship?

For seven years, he was briefless. Politicians feared his moral courage. He refused the post of CJ. That post would have been his for five and a half years. Yet when Seervai spoke, the Constitution itself seemed to roar. This is the untold story of how one man's unwavering integrity shaped constitutional law across the Commonwealth—and why his final act on Republic Day 1996 was the perfect ending to ...

Read More

What is the difference between ‘Questions of Law’, ‘Questions of Fact’ and ‘Mixed’ questions?

Every courtroom dispute hinges on a deceptively simple question: "What exactly are we arguing about?" Yet this fundamental inquiry—whether we are debating what the law says, what actually happened, or how proven facts fit legal standards—can determine the fate of both victims and defendants. The distinction isn't merely academic; it shapes everything from appeal strategies to awards for compensation.

Read More

Who guards the Guardians? What happens when the PM has the power to pick judges, but is in conflict?

The PM, the CJ, and other constitutional appointees are all guardians of the Constitution. If one falters, what happens? When a Prime Minister faces a suit in court, yet it is he who must pick the senior judges who will head the judiciary— he is immediately placed in an irreconcilable position of conflict. Three constitutional paths emerge from Malaysia’s deepest democratic paradox. What are they? There is no point in ...

Read More

The Greatest Judges of All Time: the Titans who defied history

When history called, eleven judges answered: “Here I stand.” From Atkin’s neighbour principle to Dixon’s legalism, from Solomon’s wisdom to Bao Zheng’s integrity, from Abu Hanifa’s reasoning to Ginsburg’s equality crusade—these titans of justice dared to choose courage over comfort, principle over precedent. Their legacy lives in every courtroom where fairness still matters—proof that law can be humanity’s greatest tool for justice.

Read More

Nine judges, two years, one crisis: Malaysia’s path between Judicial collapse and Constitutional Renewal

Malaysia's judiciary teeters on the brink. An institutional crisis looms—potentially as devastating as 1988's judicial catastrophe—threatening constitutional governance and the rule of law itself. Nine Federal Court judges departing within two years represents far more than administrative upheaval: it's a catastrophic haemorrhaging of judicial wisdom, precisely when institutional memory matters most. We should never have come to this pass. Left unchecked, this depletion spells disaster for the nation. Which path will Malaysia ...

Read More

Is a prime minister immune from civil suits?

Do you remember an essay I wrote in 2018? The one that argued that a former PM enjoyed no immunity from criminal prosecution? Stand that principle on its head. Is a prime minister immune from a civil suit, [e.g. a suit for breach of contract to buy a property]? What if she did enjoy such an immunity? What would happen?

Read More

The Promise and the Perils of Artificial Intelligence in Court Work

Artificial Intelligence flows through the hallowed halls of justice as the morning mist—pervasive, transformative, and unstoppable. Courts and lawyers alike should embrace AI — with wisdom, not fear. Frost reminds us, “The best way out is always through.” No machine can ever match the human soul's eternal quest for justice. That fire burns beyond all programming.

Read More