v Public Prosecutor [1975] 2 MLJ 264 is a case in Malaysian law concerning the freedom of speech, sedition, and Article 10 of the Constitution.
These issues were considered "sensitive"[1] — they had been entrenched in the Constitution after the May 13 Incident of racial rioting in the federal capital of Kuala Lumpur in 1969.
They argued that the police did not have the right to impose prior restraint in the issuing of permits, and this was thus ultra vires (beyond the power granted by) Article 10.
Chang also cited the judgement in the British case of R. v. Comptroller of Patents-ex parte Bayer Products Ltd. (1941), stating: ...if a regulation is expressed to have been made because it appeared to the authorities to be necessary to secure, inter alia, the public safety, the defence of the realm and the maintenance of public order then the court had no jurisdiction to investigate the reasons which impelled the authorities in question to the conclusion that it was necessary or expedient to effect any of the specified purposes.
It has been suggested that the court could have chosen to assess the "intent on the part of the applicant to create a seditious tendency in order to establish his state of mind".