WITH the retirement of Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat on July 1, 2025, Malaysia turns a page in its judicial history. It is equally timely to take stock of the continuing legacy of another distinguished Federal Court judge — Tan Sri Hasnah Mohammed Hashim FCJ. Still actively serving, Hasnah FCJ represents a contrasting school of judicial thought and method: one marked by analytical clarity, doctrinal discipline, and a principled restraint that stands in sharp relief against the sweeping ideological style that came to define Tengku Maimun’s tenure as Chief Justice.

Two Jurists, Two Visions

Justice Hasnah’s jurisprudence is rooted in text, structure, and careful reasoning. Her judgments reflect a judge who sees her task as legal rather than ideological. In Zaidi Kanapiah v ASP Khairul Fairoz Rodzuan [2021] 5 CLJ 581, she invalidated detention orders not on abstract constitutional grounds but because the statutory preconditions for remand were simply not met. This was a textbook example of principled judicial scrutiny: vigilant against executive excess, yet grounded in law, not theory.

By contrast, Tengku Maimun’s leadership of the apex court saw a marked shift toward expansive constitutionalism, most notably her forceful embrace of the Basic Structure Doctrine (BSD). In Ketheeswaran Kanagaratnam v PP [2024] 2 CLJ 341, she reaffirmed that the judiciary holds an inviolable core of judicial power under Articles 4(1) and 121(1) FC, and that legislative incursions, even well-crafted ones like Section 61A of the ATIPSOM Act, must be interpreted through a structuralist lens that favours broad judicial review — even if not expressly provided in the Constitution.

Where Hasnah sees limits, Maimun often saw mission. And that difference is not merely stylistic — it speaks to deeper questions of how judges conceive their role in a constitutional democracy.

Hasnah’s Strength: Precision Without Polemics

Justice Hasnah’s judgments are notable for their logical sequence, doctrinal neutrality, and avoidance of overreach. In Maria Chin Abdullah v KP Imigresen [2021] 2 CLJ 579, she aligned with the view that judicial review under Section 59A could be limited in scope by Parliament, as long as procedural safeguards were respected. Her analysis did not depend on importing doctrines from abroad or abstract principles of global constitutionalism. It relied instead on the words of the Federal Constitution and the statutory framework before her .

In Rovin Joty v Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah [2021] 4 CLJ 1, Hasnah FCJ again demonstrated her commitment to constitutional due process while respecting statutory design. Her judicial temperament consistently favours legal certainty, incrementalism, and fidelity to precedent over rhetorical flourish or activist impulses.

Tengku Maimun’s Approach: Expansive, Often Abstract

Tengku Maimun, by contrast, brought a philosophical and internationalist tone to many of her judgments. Her decisions often invoked principles like “constitutional supremacy,” “structural integrity,” and “triangulation of interests” between the state, the individual, and society. In Nivesh Nair [2021] 8 CLJ 163, her court set aside a Federal Court ruling on the basis that it had reinterpreted the Basic Structure Doctrine without affording parties the right to be heard — an act she saw as a breach of natural justice and constitutional fairness.

But for all its idealism, this method has drawn criticism for unsettling settled law and replacing constitutional text with amorphous doctrine. The recurring invocation of Semenyih Jaya, Indira Gandhi, and Alma Nudo as a constitutional “trilogy” became a hallmark of her jurisprudential approach, often used to override later statutory developments or legislative intent.

Scholarly Restraint versus Constitutional Maximalism

Where Justice Hasnah exercises interpretive caution, the Maimun Court often adopted a maximalist posture. For instance, while Hasnah FCJ in Zaidi Kanapiah carefully analysed whether the magistrate exercised real discretion under POCA before declaring the detention unlawful, Tengku Maimun in Ketheeswaran constructed an elaborate constitutional defence of judicial power, casting even modest evidentiary innovations as potential threats to judicial supremacy.

This difference matters. Hasnah’s approach offers litigants clarity and predictability. Maimun’s approach, while aspirational, sometimes rendered constitutional boundaries fluid — particularly in cases involving ouster clauses, parliamentary procedure, and statutory interpretation.

Conclusion: The Continuing Relevance of Hasnah FCJ

With Tengku Maimun’s departure, Justice Hasnah Mohammed Hashim now stands as one of the most intellectually dependable and doctrinally grounded judges on the apex bench. Her continuing presence offers a model of judicial behaviour that prizes discipline over drama, logic over ideology, and clarity over conceptual overreach.

In a time when public confidence in judicial institutions is shaped as much by tone as by substance, Hasnah FCJ represents a rare balance: fiercely independent yet modest in expression; protective of liberty yet scrupulously faithful to legal boundaries.

Her judgments are not declarations of war between branches of government — they are legal answers to legal questions. And in that, she reminds the country what the judiciary is meant to be: not an oracle, not an activist tribunal, but a court of law.

*The author is an experienced legal practitioner who frequently engages in legal discourse