Constitution. The relevant facts in that case were as follows. The Kelantan State Constitution by Art. XXXIA provides that a member of the State Legislative Assembly who is a member of a political party, shall cease to be a member of the legislative assembly if he resigns or for any reason ceases to be a member of such political party. The issue in that case was whether such a provision was inconsistent with Art 10 (1) (c) of the Constitution and if so, to that extent invalid by virtue of Art. 4(1) of the Constitution. This Court held, inter alia, that the restriction sought to be imposed by the State Constitution was invalid as the State Constitution, being State law, could not impose such a restriction. [12] Relying on that case, learned counsel submitted that only Parliament has the exclusive authority to enact law to restrict the rights as enshrined under Art.10 of the Constitution. Since the Act was not enacted by Parliament, therefore, it was not a valid law. In our view, that case may be distinguished from the present case on two grounds. First, as stated in that case the impugned law was a State law and not a Federal law and secondly, it is a post-Merdeka law. Hence, the impugned law in that case clearly runs counter to Art 10 (2) and Art. 10 (4) of the Constitution, accordingly it is void under Art. 4(1). [14] – [15] Having said that, the Act in the present case is a pre-Merdeka law, the issue, therefore, is whether it is saved by Art. 162 of the Constitution. “Existing law” is defined in Art.160 (2) to mean “…any law in operation in the Federation or any part thereof immediately before Merdeka Day;”. The word “law” “… includes written law, the common law in so far as it is in operation in the Federation or any part thereof, and any custom or usage having the force of law in the Federation or any part thereof;”. [16] – [17] The Act, being a written law which was in operation in the Federation immediately prior to Merdeka Day clearly comes within the meaning of the term “existing law” as defined in Art. 160(2). On that premise, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the Act was saved by Art.162 of the Constitution. [18] What is the purport and intent of Art. 162? When Malaya achieved her independence on 31.8.1957, it is not possible for a new set of legislations to be immediately enacted 4