Ravi v Attorney-General: Challenge to Elected Presidency Scheme under Article 12 of Constitution
Ravi s/o Madasamy filed an originating summons in the High Court of Singapore challenging the Elected Presidency Scheme (EPS) as inconsistent with Article 12 of the Constitution. The Attorney-General represented the defendant. See Kee Oon J dismissed the originating summons on 10 July 2017, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing and that the scheme did not violate the Constitution.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Originating Summons dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Constitutional
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Ravi challenges the Elected Presidency Scheme, alleging inconsistency with Article 12 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the originating summons.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Defendant | Government Agency | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Jamie Pang of Attorney-General’s Chambers Hri Kumar Nair of Attorney-General’s Chambers Seow Zhixiang of Attorney-General’s Chambers Aurill Kam of Attorney-General’s Chambers Germaine Boey of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ravi s/o Madasamy | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Jamie Pang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Hri Kumar Nair | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Seow Zhixiang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Aurill Kam | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Germaine Boey | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff filed an originating summons challenging the Elected Presidency Scheme (EPS).
- The plaintiff argued that the EPS and its amendments violate Article 12 of the Constitution.
- The plaintiff contended that the EPS contravenes the basic structure doctrine.
- The plaintiff claimed the EPS is discriminatory on the grounds of ethnicity.
- The defendant argued that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the application.
- The defendant submitted that the basic structure doctrine is not recognized in Singapore.
- The defendant argued that the reserved elections framework is not racially discriminatory.
5. Formal Citations
- Ravi s/o Madasamy v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 548 of 2017 and Summons Nos 2619 and 2710 of 2017, [2017] SGHC 163
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Originating Summons filed | |
| Summons No 2710 of 2017 filed | |
| Hearing scheduled on expedited basis | |
| Notice of appeal filed | |
| Originating Summons dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Standing
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the originating summons.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 4 SLR 476
- [2013] 4 SLR 1
- [2014] 1 SLR 345
- Basic Structure Doctrine
- Outcome: The court declined to make a definitive ruling on whether the basic structure doctrine is part of Singapore law.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- AIR 1973 SC 1461
- [1989] 1 SLR(R) 461
- [2015] 2 SLR 1129
- Discrimination
- Outcome: The court held that the amendments to the Elected Presidency Scheme are not discriminatory.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the Elected Presidency Scheme is unconstitutional
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Article 12 of the Constitution
10. Practice Areas
- Constitutional Litigation
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala | Indian Supreme Court | Yes | AIR 1973 SC 1461 | India | Cited regarding the basic structure doctrine and its impact on constitutional amendments. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 1189 | Singapore | Cited in relation to the basic structure doctrine and its potential application in Singapore law. |
| Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 476 | Singapore | Cited regarding the requirements for standing in constitutional challenges and the need to demonstrate a violation of personal rights. |
| Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited regarding the rules on standing in public law and the need to demonstrate special damage when asserting a public right. |
| Teo Soh Lung v Minister for Home Affairs and others | High Court | Yes | [1989] 1 SLR(R) 461 | Singapore | Cited for the High Court's rejection of the basic structure doctrine in Singapore. |
| Teo Soh Lung v Minister for Home Affairs and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 347 | Singapore | Cited as the Court of Appeal considered it unnecessary to consider the applicability of the basic structure doctrine. |
| Cheng Vincent v Minister for Home Affairs and others | High Court | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 38 | Singapore | Cited as Law Kew Chai J concurred with Chua J’s rejection of the basic structure doctrine in Teo Soh Lung. |
| Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 947 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principle of separation of powers as part of the basic structure of the Singapore Constitution. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 1129 | Singapore | Cited regarding the basic structure doctrine and the requirements for a feature to be considered part of the basic structure of the Constitution. |
| Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 345 | Singapore | Cited regarding the rules on standing in public law and the prevention of abuse of the legal process by busybodies. |
| Leser et al v Garnett et al | United States Supreme Court | Yes | 258 US 130 (1922) | United States | Cited to demonstrate the problematic nature of the basic structure doctrine. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
| O 28 r 2 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
| Art 68 of the Constitution | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Elected Presidency Scheme
- Basic Structure Doctrine
- Article 12
- Standing
- Discrimination
- Reserved Elections
- Constitution
- Public Interest Litigator
15.2 Keywords
- Elected Presidency Scheme
- Article 12
- Constitution
- Standing
- Basic Structure Doctrine
- Discrimination
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Law | 90 |
| Presidential Election | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 40 |
| Appellate Practice | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Elected Presidency
- Fundamental Rights
- Standing
- Basic Structure Doctrine
- Discrimination