KUALA LUMPUR, July 30 — Judiciary officials should interpret the law as intended by the legislature, said Chief Justice Tun Zaki Tun Azmi.

He said that before going to Parliament, all Bills were scrutinised at length by the Attorney-General’s Chambers and officers of the relevant ministries.

There were 292 representatives in Parliament, with 222 members in the Dewan Rakyat and 70 in the Dewan Negara, he added.

“If the words are obviously clear and the intention, reflected in those words, who are we, the courts, to give a different interpretation?” he asked when delivering a talk, themed ‘Judicial Activism: Is It Activism or Plain Interpretation?’ during the plenary session of the 15th Malaysian Law Conference 2010 here Friday.

According to the Wikipedia, the term, judicial activism is used to describe judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations, rather than on existing law.

Over 450 local and foreign delegates attended the three-day conference themed ‘Malaysia: Extending Frontiers, Widening Horizons’, which began Thursday.

Zaki said activist judges were looked up to, by some lawyers, academicians and law students because in their view, the reasoning of these judges was perceived as a development of the law.

Citing as an example, Lord Denning, who was popularly known for controversial decisions, he said the English judge’s decision might be good and necessary in some instances.

However, the chief justice said, in his opinion, it could be a dangerous weapon in the hands of a “too activist judge”.

“Such a judge could overly expand or narrow down a set of legal principles based on his own personal ideals. He may not agree with the principles set by Parliament and find ways and means of going against those principles.

“Is that right? To me, it is rather a dangerous trend to follow,” he said.

Zaki said, should judges — even at the apex court sitting in three, five, seven, or nine on the bench — change the law, it would perhaps, go against the wishes of the voters by interpreting a legislation not intended by the legislators.

He said that in the Commonwealth, the number of so-called activist judges was extremely small as most of the judges would rather play the part of being an interpreter of the legislations by the legislators.

“There are a very small number (of judges) who expressed their personal views in their judgments but these are usually frowned upon by their colleagues.

“Some of these judgments are corrected on appeals,” he noted. — Bernama