On 26 March 2025, I stood in the Syariah High Court of Selangor for what I hoped would be one of the final court appearance in my case. The judge gave directions for the next steps. I noted everything carefully.

The schedule I wrote down as the judge gave his directions:

I filed my written submission on 22 April 2025 – four days ahead of the deadline.

Waiting for the Other Side

26 May came and went. I had not received my copy – the plaintiff’s copy – of MAIS’s written submission from the defendant. I waited. Nothing arrived. On 9 June 2025, I sent a message to the defendant’s lawyer asking whether they had submitted their submissions. They replied that they would be submitting only that day. That evening, I received their email submission – sent to the court and copied to me.

I have the covering letter from MAIS dated 9 June 2025 confirming the filing, fourteen days after their deadline. I only received a copy because I followed up. Had I not done that, I am not certain it would have reached me at all.

After receiving MAIS’s submission, I filed my re-submission on 16 June 2025. The process, as far as I understood it, was now complete. All that remained was to wait for the decision on 23 July 2025.

Then the 60 sessions happened. As I wrote in an earlier post, the defendant submitted their ‘istitabah’ report late – and my application was still rejected on 29 January 2026. I filed my notice of appeal on 10 February 2026.

Since then, I have sent several letters and emails to the court requesting copies of both the July 2025 court order and the January 2026 court order, along with their respective judgments. The only substantive response I received was an email on 9 April 2026 stating that the matter was “masih dalam penyediaan melengkapkan Nota Keterangan dan Alasan Penghakiman” – still being prepared, completing the Notes of Evidence and Grounds of Judgment – and that I would be notified when ready. To the date of this article, I have not received that notification. I have not received either court order. I have not received either judgment through the court.

A Surprise While Googling My Own Name

In April 2026, I was browsing online and searched my own name. What came up stopped me.

There, on Supreme Today AI, a legal database platform, was the written judgment in my case. Shameer P V Anversha lwn Majlis Agama Islam Selangor [2025] MarsdenLR 5205.

I had not received it from the court. No letter. No notification. No copy sent to me as the plaintiff. I stumbled upon my own court judgment through an internet search.

As I write this post, that is still the situation. To the date of this article, I have not received any judgment or court order from the court in relation to my case – not the May 2025 judgment, and not the January 2026 order pertaining to my application. The only document in connection with the first court order is a draft order that was prepared by the defendant, MAIS, and presented to me to sign. That is not the same as receiving an official court order through the proper process.

I am the plaintiff. I brought this case. I have been pursuing it since 2018. And I found out a decision had been made and published through a public AI database – not through the court that made it.

The Problem with the Judgment I Found

The judgment is dated 20 May 2025.

That date matters because of what was supposed to happen before the decision was made:

• MAIS’s written submission was due on 26 May – six days after the judgment was already dated
• My reply submission was due on 23 June – over a month after the judgment was already dated
• The decision was scheduled for 23 July – two months after the judgment was already dated

The judgment was issued before MAIS had filed anything. Before I had the opportunity to read whatever MAIS would submit and respond to it. And two months before the date the court itself had set for the decision.

In other words, the process the court directed on 26 March 2025 was not completed before the judgment was issued. It made me wonder whether or not the defendant would have even submitted their submissions if I had not asked a copy?

Why This Matters

The right to be heard before a decision is made – audi alteram partem – is one of the oldest principles of natural justice. It means that before a court decides, all parties must have had a full opportunity to present their case. It is not a technicality. It is the foundation of a fair hearing.

The Federal Court in Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v Pengarah JAIP [2018] 1 MLJ 545 and Maria Chin Abdullah v Ketua Pengarah Imigresen [2021] 1 MLJ 750 has affirmed that the right to a fair process is part of the constitutional protection of personal liberty under Article 5(1). Procedural fairness is not separate from constitutional rights – it is part of them.

In my case:

• The judgment was issued before the defendant had filed their submission
• The defendant filed their submission only after I requested a copy
• My right of reply was rendered meaningless by the time it was filed
• The decision came two months before the scheduled date
• I was not given a copy of the judgment
• I have not received a copy of either court order to date

Each of these, taken alone, might be explained. Taken together, they raise a serious question about whether the process that produced this judgment was complete – and whether it met the standard of fairness the Constitution requires.

I raise them here not only because of my own case. If this is how the process operates – if judgments can be issued before submissions are complete, if plaintiffs must discover their own court orders through an AI platform, if the opposing party only submits court documents when prompted – then the concern is not mine alone. It affects anyone who goes through this system.

In my next post, I will turn to the substance of what the judgment actually decided – and whether the reasoning holds up.