The appellants were detained under regulation 33 (1) of the Preservation of Public Security Regulations Act. Their applications for harbeas corpus (a writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court) were rejected by the High Court. Aggrieved by the decision, they appealed.
This was an order to revise and clarify the definition of an idle and disorderly person per the Penal Code Act. The accused person was charged with photographing the president without permission. He entered a plea of guilty before the magistrates’ court. The magistrate court accordingly convicted the accused on the plea of guilty.
This was an appeal for recovery of general and special damages for negligence, and the costs of the suit. The appeal deliberated state liability for harm or damage caused in maintaining public order during a gathering.
