said that the legislation or executive action must not only be objectively fair but must also be proportionate to the object sought to be achieved. [42] In this regard, we agree with the learned Judge in Sivarasa Rasiah, that the restriction that may be imposed by the legislature under Art. 10 (2) is not without limit. This means to say that the law promulgated under Art.10 (2) must pass the proportionality test in order to be valid. This, in our view is in line with the test laid down in Pung Chen Choon discussed earlier. Having said that, we will now consider whether s.4 (1) of the Act would pass the proportionality test. One thing is clear, this section is directed to any act, word or publication having a “seditious tendency” as defined in s.3 (1) paras. (a) to (f) of the Act. This in our view is consistent with Art. 10 (2) (a) and Art. 10(4) of the Constitution, as it cannot be said that the restrictions imposed by s. 4(1) is too remote or not sufficiently connected to the subjects/objects enumerated in Art.10 (2) (a). Furthermore, this is not a total prohibition as it is subject to a number of exceptions as provided in s.3(2) of the Act. As legislated, it is not seditious to show that any Ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures, or to point out errors or defects in any Government or constitution as by law established. Upon close analysis, we agree with the plaintiff’s submission that the restrictions imposed in s.4 (1) fall squarely within the ambit or parameter of Art.10 (2)(a) of the Constitution. [43] In the result, we hold that s.4 (1) of the Act does not run counter to Art. 10(2) (a) of the Constitution. Accordingly, our answer to the first question is in the negative. With the above findings, we now order that this matter be remitted to the Sessions Court for the proceedings to be continued without any further delay. [44] – [45] References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment NOTE: This summary is merely to assist in understanding the Court’s judgment. The full judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document. 10