page_title: Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v. Attorney-General
section_title: Interpretation of Article 49(1)
hierarchical_section_title: Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v. Attorney-General / Reception of the case / Interpretation of Article 49(1)
caption_attribution_description: English: A depiction of Justice in Rodolfo Nolli's sculpture Allegory of Justice on the tympanum of the Old Supreme Court Building, Singapore.
context_page_description: Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v. Attorney-General was a 2013 decision of the Court of Appeal of Singapore which held that Article 49 of the Constitution requires the Prime Minister to call a by-election when a casual vacancy arises in a Single Member Constituency, though the election need only be called within a reasonable time.
  The holding was an obiter dictum, that is, not required for the decision in the case and therefore not a binding precedent, though it may be persuasive in future cases. This was because the Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant, Madam Vellama, lacked standing. She had originally applied for judicial review in 2012 to ask the High Court to order the Prime Minister to call a by-election in Hougang Single Member Constituency following the expulsion of her Member of Parliament by his political party, the Workers' Party of Singapore. However, by the time the matter came on appeal, the 2012 by-election had been called and held. Therefore, she was arguably no longer directly affected by the lack of an MP in her constituency. Her only remaining interest was in having the Prime Minister correctly interpret Article 49 of the Constitution.
context_section_description: The Vellama decision was described as "a surprise to those used to a judicial stance that is fairly deferential towards the Government". The courts take such a deferential stance when dealing with certain types of decisions, often involving complex policy issues or national security. However, the court's statement indicating it would only intervene in "exceptional cases" while taking a "fact sensitive" approach represents a reservation of a fair amount of leeway for the Prime Minister in making such decisions.
  It has also been noted that the Court of Appeal's approach to constitutional interpretation in the case reflects the approach taken by the Privy Council in Minister for Home Affairs v. Fisher (1979). Such an approach deems a constitutional instrument as sui generis and calling for principles of interpretation of its own because full recognition and effect must be given to fundamental rights and freedoms. The Court of Appeal's focus on the suggestion that residents have an entitlement or right to representation rather than on the purpose behind the statute has been described as embracing the Fisher approach and as a departure from the interpretive approach to constitutional interpretation espoused in section 9A of the Interpretation Act read with Article 2(9) of the Constitution. Section 9A requires a purposive approach to be taken when interpreting laws, and states that an interpretation of a law that would promote the purpose or object underlying the written law (whether that purpose or object is expressly stated in the written law or not) shall be preferred to an interpretation that would not promote that purpose or object. Article 2(9) states: "Subject to this Article, the Interpretation Act (Cap. 1) shall apply for the purpose of interpreting this Constitution and otherwise in relation thereto as it applies for the purpose of interpreting and otherwise in relation to any written law within the meaning of that Act".
  The Vellama decision has also been described as enshrining the principle of judicial independence and impartiality in Singapore by dispelling unfounded beliefs by some members of the public that the judiciary is subject to influence by the legislative and executive branches of government. It has also been said that the decision serves as a definition and recognition of the rights of Singaporeans with regards to whether a by-election must be called. However, because Vellama's appeal was in fact dismissed for lack of standing, the holding of the Court with regards to the Prime Minister's discretion in calling a by-election was obiter dicta and, strictly speaking, is not binding on other courts faced with a similar decision.
caption: A figure of Lady Justice in the centre of Rodolfo Nolli's 1939 sculpture Allegory of Justice in the tympanum of the Old Supreme Court Building. The Vellama decision has been described as a demonstration of judicial independence from the political branches of government.
exif: {"Image Orientation": "Horizontal (normal)", "Image XResolution": "72", "Image YResolution": "72", "Image ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Inch", "Image ExifOffset": "90", "EXIF ExifImageWidth": "283", "EXIF ExifImageLength": "318"}