Madan Mohan Singh v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Singapore Prison Service Hair Grooming Policy
Madan Mohan Singh, a former volunteer Sikh religious counsellor, applied for judicial review against the Attorney-General concerning the Singapore Prison Service's hair grooming policy for Sikh inmates. The High Court struck out the originating summons, holding that the applicant lacked the requisite locus standi and that there was a delay in bringing the application. The court found that the applicant's rights were not violated by the policy.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Originating Summons struck out.
1.3 Case Type
Judicial Review
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Judicial review application concerning Singapore Prison Service's hair grooming policy for Sikh inmates. The High Court struck out the application due to lack of locus standi and delay.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Madan Mohan Singh | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | Ravi s/o Madasamy |
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Application to Strike Out Granted | Won | David Chong, Ruth Yeo, Germaine Boey, Ailene Chou, Jamie Pang |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Quentin Loh | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ravi s/o Madasamy | L F Violet Netto |
| David Chong | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Ruth Yeo | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Germaine Boey | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Ailene Chou | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Jamie Pang | Attorney-General's Chambers |
4. Facts
- The Applicant was a Sikh religious counsellor with the Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association Sikh Aftercare (Counselling) Services.
- The SPS has a strict hair grooming policy for its inmates.
- Inmates who declare their religion to be Sikhism and who have unshorn hair and beard at the point of admission would be exempted from the general rule.
- The SPS began to label unshorn Sikh inmates as “practising Sikhs” and shorn Sikh inmates as “non-practising Sikhs”.
- The SPS abandoned the “practising” and “non-practising” terminology in February 2013.
- The SPS decided that it was no longer appropriate for the Applicant to continue volunteering at the SPS.
- The SPS deemed the Applicant’s alleged actions to be a serious threat to the discipline, security, safety and order of the prison.
5. Formal Citations
- Madan Mohan Singh v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 38 of 2011 (Summons No 3725 of 2014), [2015] SGHC 48
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant identified as volunteer Sikh religious counsellor at the SPS. | |
| Applicant requested a review of the SPS’s hair grooming policy for inmates. | |
| SPS noticed a spike in the number of Sikh inmates requesting to keep their hair long and commenced investigations. | |
| SPS informed the Applicant that his volunteer pass would expire on 31 December 2011 and would not be renewed. | |
| Applicant filed a police report in relation to an incident where an inmate’s hair was allegedly forcibly cut. | |
| Applicant filed a police report in relation to an incident where an inmate’s hair was allegedly forcibly cut. | |
| Applicant started writing again to the SPS. | |
| SPS informed the Applicant that it would no longer be responding to the Applicant’s emails regarding the hair grooming policy. | |
| Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SPS’s email and indicated he was in talks with senior Sikh community leaders. | |
| Applicant filed Originating Summons No 1212 of 2013 with a Sikh inmate, Jagjeet Singh. | |
| Applicant filed the present Originating Summons No 38 of 2011. | |
| The Respondent filed Summons 3725 of 2014 to strike out the present OS under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court. | |
| Parties appeared before the court. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Locus Standi
- Outcome: The court held that the applicant lacked the requisite locus standi to bring the originating summons.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Sufficient interest in the matter
- Violation of personal right
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 4 SLR 476
- [2013] 4 SLR 1
- Delay
- Outcome: The court held that the originating summons was brought out of time.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Time bar
- Abuse of process
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 1 SLR 856
- Violation of Constitutional Rights
- Outcome: The court held that the applicant's right to propagate his religion was not violated by the Singapore Prison Service's hair grooming policy.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Freedom of religion
- Right to propagate religion
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing Order
- Declaration
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Public Law
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Government
- Law Enforcement
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 476 | Singapore | Cited for the high threshold for striking out an application. |
| The “Tokai Maru” | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 646 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of a reasonable cause of action. |
| Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General | Unknown | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 320 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an application may be struck out if the applicant is unable to establish the requisite locus standi. |
| Abdul Razak Ahmad v Majlis Bandaraya Johor Bahru | Unknown | Yes | [1995] 2 MLJ 287 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that an application may be struck out if the applicant is unable to establish the requisite locus standi. |
| Hong Alvin v Chia Quee Khee | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 249 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the lack of locus standi can form the basis of striking out an application. |
| Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General | Unknown | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 345 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that one of the requirements for granting leave to bring judicial review proceedings is that the applicant has sufficient interest in the matter. |
| Vellama d/o of Marie Muthu v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the test to determine locus standi under O 53 r 1 of the Rules of Court. |
| Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 112 | Singapore | Cited for the test for locus standi in the context of private rights. |
| Regina (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice and another | Unknown | Yes | [2014] AC 271 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that prison inmates suffer a temporary exclusion from society. |
| Chua Choon Lim Robert v MN Swami and others | Unknown | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 589 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a delay in bringing proceedings may constitute an abuse of process. |
| Ronex Properties Ltd v John Laing Construction Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1983] QB 398 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a delay in bringing proceedings may constitute an abuse of process. |
| Tey Tsun Hang v Attorney-General | Unknown | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 856 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the three-month time limit in O 53 r 1(6) of the Rules of Court applies equally. |
| Zheng Jianxing v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 1100 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that ignorance is not a sufficient explanation for a delay in bringing judicial review. |
| UDL Marine (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Jurong Town Corp | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 94 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that O 53 r 1(6) of the Rules of Court was sufficiently broad to admit an explanation based on ignorance. |
| Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 568 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the applicant had not accounted for the delay in bringing its application because it had the interest, the knowledge and the means to have acquired the information to make its application long before it filed its application. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Art 15(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| O 53 of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| O 53 r 1 of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| O 53 r 1(1) of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| O 53 r 1(6) of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| O 28 r 3 of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| O 15 r 16 of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Hair Grooming Policy
- Sikh Inmates
- Singapore Prison Service
- Religious Counsellor
- Locus Standi
- Judicial Review
- Volunteer Pass
- Practising Sikhs
- Non-Practising Sikhs
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial Review
- Sikh
- Prison
- Hair Grooming Policy
- Locus Standi
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Rights
- Religious Freedom
- Prison Administration
- Judicial Review
17. Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Administrative Law
- Judicial Review
- Prison Law
- Religious Freedom