Tan Seng Kee v Attorney-General: Constitutionality of Section 377A Penal Code & Freedom of Expression
The Singapore Court of Appeal heard appeals from Tan Seng Kee, Ong Ming Johnson, and Choong Chee Hong against the Attorney-General, challenging the constitutionality of Section 377A of the Penal Code under Articles 9, 12, and 14 of the Constitution. The court dismissed the appeals, holding that Section 377A is unenforceable unless the Attorney-General signals a change in prosecutorial policy, balancing individual rights and societal values.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeals dismissed; Section 377A deemed unenforceable unless Attorney-General signals change in prosecutorial policy.
1.3 Case Type
Constitutional
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal upholds Section 377A of the Penal Code but deems it unenforceable, balancing individual rights and societal values.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent, Defendant | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Hui Choon Kuen of Attorney-General’s Chambers Kristy Tan Ruyan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Pang Ru Xue Jamie of Attorney-General’s Chambers Wong Huiwen Denise of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jeremy Yeo of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Seng Kee | Appellant, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Ong Ming Johnson | Appellant, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Choong Chee Hong | Appellant, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Hui Choon Kuen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kristy Tan Ruyan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Pang Ru Xue Jamie | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Wong Huiwen Denise | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jeremy Yeo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ravi s/o Madasamy | Carson Law Chambers |
| Suang Wijaya | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Johannes Hadi | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Joel Wong En Jie | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Choo Zheng Xi | Peter Low & Choo LLC |
| Jordan Tan | Audent Chambers LLC |
| Victor Leong | Audent Chambers LLC |
| Wong Thai Yong | Peter Low & Choo LLC |
| Harpreet Singh Nehal | Audent Chambers LLC |
| Priscilla Chia Wen Qi | Peter Low & Choo LLC |
4. Facts
- Appellants challenged the constitutionality of Section 377A of the Penal Code.
- Section 377A criminalizes acts of gross indecency between male persons.
- The Prime Minister stated that Section 377A would not be proactively enforced.
- The Attorney-General clarified the prosecutorial policy regarding Section 377A.
- Appellants argued Section 377A violates Articles 9, 12, and 14 of the Constitution.
- The High Court dismissed the applications, finding Section 377A constitutional.
- The Court of Appeal considered the political compromise surrounding Section 377A.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Seng Kee v Attorney-General, Civil Appeal No 54 of 2020, [2022] SGCA 16
- Ong Ming Johnson v Attorney-General, Civil Appeal No 55 of 2020, [2022] SGCA 16
- Choong Chee Hong v Attorney-General, Civil Appeal No 71 of 2020, [2022] SGCA 16
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Section 377A enacted by the Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements. | |
| Petition to repeal Section 377A presented to Parliament. | |
| Section 377A debated in Parliament during the second reading of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill. | |
| High Court holds Section 377A constitutional in Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General. | |
| Court of Appeal upholds High Court decision in Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General. | |
| Attorney-General clarifies prosecutorial policy on Section 377A in a press release. | |
| Attorney-General reiterates position in The Straits Times article. | |
| Hearing held in the Court of Appeal. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Constitutionality of Section 377A
- Outcome: Section 377A is unenforceable unless the Attorney-General signals a change in prosecutorial policy.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Inconsistency with Article 9 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)
- Inconsistency with Article 12 (Equal Protection)
- Inconsistency with Article 14 (Freedom of Expression)
- Related Cases:
- Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General [2013] 4 SLR 1059
- Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General and another appeal and another matter [2015] 1 SLR 26
- Interpretation of Section 377A
- Outcome: The court held that the term 'gross indecency' includes both penetrative and non-penetrative sex acts and is not limited to male prostitution.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Scope of 'gross indecency'
- Legislative intent behind enactment
- Impact of non-enforcement policy
- Related Cases:
- Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General [2017] 2 SLR 850
- Doctrine of Substantive Legitimate Expectations
- Outcome: The court recognized a limited application of the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations, imbuing the Attorney-General's representations with legal force.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Application in the context of Section 377A
- Legal effect of Attorney-General's representations
- Balancing individual rights and public interest
- Related Cases:
- Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex parte MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1545
- SGB Starkstrom Pte Ltd v Commissioner for Labour [2016] 3 SLR 598
- Chiu Teng @ Kallang Pte Ltd v Singapore Land Authority [2014] 1 SLR 1047
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaratory relief
- Voiding of Section 377A to the extent of inconsistency with the Constitution
9. Cause of Actions
- Constitutional challenge to Section 377A of the Penal Code
10. Practice Areas
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
- Judicial Review
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lawrence et al v Texas | Supreme Court | Yes | Lawrence et al v Texas 539 US 558 (2003) | United States | Cited to highlight the profound consequences of laws prohibiting particular sexual acts. |
| Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor [2012] 4 SLR 947 | Singapore | Cited for the doctrine of separation of powers in the Westminster constitutional model. |
| Saravanan Chandaram v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | Saravanan Chandaram v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2020] 2 SLR 95 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Parliament's actions are not presumptively constitutional. |
| Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Public Prosecutor [2021] 1 SLR 476 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that each organ of State has its own role and space. |
| Marbury v Madison | Supreme Court | Yes | Marbury v Madison 5 US 137 (1803) | United States | Cited for the principle that the role of the court is to say what the law is. |
| Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General [2013] 4 SLR 1059 | Singapore | Cited as a previous challenge to the constitutionality of Section 377A. |
| Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General and another appeal and another matter [2015] 1 SLR 26 | Singapore | Cited as a previous Court of Appeal decision upholding the constitutionality of Section 377A. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the three-step framework for statutory interpretation. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2010] 3 SLR 489 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a law must not be absurd or arbitrary. |
| Obergefell v Hodges | Supreme Court | Yes | Obergefell v Hodges 576 US 644 (2015) | United States | Cited to highlight the consequences of removing issues of public and moral significance from the realm of democratic decision. |
| Navtej Singh Johar & Ors v Union of India thr Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice | Supreme Court | Yes | Navtej Singh Johar & Ors v Union of India thr Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice [2018] 10 SCC 1 | India | Cited as an example of a foreign court decriminalizing same-sex intercourse. |
| UKM v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | UKM v Attorney-General [2019] 3 SLR 874 | Singapore | Cited for the criteria for assessing whether any material bears out an alleged public policy. |
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General [2012] 2 SLR 49 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Public Prosecutor makes all prosecutorial decisions without interference. |
| Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General [2012] 4 SLR 476 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that ministerial statements do not bind the Public Prosecutor. |
| Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex parte MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex parte MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1545 | England and Wales | Cited for the classic exposition of the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations. |
| SGB Starkstrom Pte Ltd v Commissioner for Labour | Court of Appeal | Yes | SGB Starkstrom Pte Ltd v Commissioner for Labour [2016] 3 SLR 598 | Singapore | Cited for the essence of the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations and the difficulties in accepting the doctrine as part of Singapore law. |
| Chiu Teng @ Kallang Pte Ltd v Singapore Land Authority | High Court | Yes | Chiu Teng @ Kallang Pte Ltd v Singapore Land Authority [2014] 1 SLR 1047 | Singapore | Cited as the first case in Singapore to hold that the doctrine of legitimate expectation should be recognised in our law as a stand-alone head of judicial review. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor [2015] 2 SLR 1129 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements to succeed in an Article 9 constitutional challenge. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2019] 2 SLR 216 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court is not equipped to make findings of fact that pertain specifically to the case brought before it, and not to make sweeping pronouncements of scientific fact. |
| Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong | Court of Appeal | Yes | Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong [1998] 2 SLR(R) 489 | Singapore | Cited for the established test for assessing whether a statutory provision is constitutional under Article 12, the 'reasonable classification' test. |
| Prabagaran a/l Srivijayan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | Prabagaran a/l Srivijayan v Public Prosecutor and other matters [2017] 1 SLR 173 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a statute cannot be contrary to the rule of law. |
| Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor | Privy Council | Yes | Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor [1981] 1 AC 648 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a statute must comply with the fundamental rules of natural justice. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and others | High Court | Yes | Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and others [2018] 1 SLR 659 | Singapore | Cited for the noscitur a sociis principle of construction. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General [2021] 1 SLR 809 | Singapore | Cited for the approach to the application of the 'reasonable classification' test. |
| Taw Cheng Kong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | Taw Cheng Kong v Public Prosecutor [1998] 1 SLR(R) 78 | Singapore | Cited for the importance of properly framing the legislative object of a statutory provision. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 377A | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 9 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 12 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 14 | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 424 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 119 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 176 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Section 377A
- Constitutionality
- Gross indecency
- Freedom of expression
- Equal protection
- Personal liberty
- Legislative intent
- Political compromise
- Prosecutorial discretion
- Legitimate expectation
- Rule of law
- Homosexuality
- Public morality
15.2 Keywords
- Section 377A
- Constitutionality
- Homosexuality
- Singapore
- LGBT rights
- Freedom of expression
- Equal protection
- Personal liberty
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Law | 95 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 80 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
| Civil Procedure | 20 |
| Criminal Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
- Human Rights