KUALA LUMPUR (Nov 25): The High Court on Monday has quashed the seizure of Swatch's rainbow-themed ‘Pride collection’ watches, holding that the May 2023 move was made before confiscation notices were issued and without any warrant.

Judge Datuk Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh ordered the 172 units of watches to be returned to the company within the next 14 days. The judge ruled the search and seizure are illegal as the notice issued by the Home Ministry came after the seizure was made.

The court did not grant damages sought by the Swiss company, but noted that the company could file for damages later if the watches were damaged during the seizure.

Amarjeet also did not grant the order sought by the watch company seeking a declaration that the home minister’s order to gazette the watches under Section 7 of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA) was unlawful.

The section gives the minister the power to ban publications that are considered undesirable.

“The watches in the instant case meet the requirement of Section 7 of the PPPA 1984. Therefore, the declaration that it does not meet the requirement (undesirable publication) is not granted,” Amarjeet said in his brief ground of judgement.

Amarjeet did not make any order as to costs over the action.

The 172 watches are said to have cost the company RM64,795 following the seizure.

Swatch Group was represented by counsel Nizam Bashir, while federal counsel Mohammad Salehuddin Ali appeared for the Home Ministry and the government.

The Swatch Group (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd had named the secretary of the Enforcement and Control Division of the Home Ministry, the secretary-general of the Home Ministry, the minister and government as respondents in the legal action.

The company was challenging the government’s action of seizing the watches at its premises nationwide for purportedly promoting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) values. Swatch claims the watches were seized from 16 different locations between May 13 and 15, 2023.

Besides this, in its judicial review application filed in June last year, the Swiss watch company also sought to quash the notice of seizure and for a return of the watches as well as aggravated and exemplary damages.

Leave, or permission, for the High Court to hear the merits of its challenge against the government was gained by the Swiss-based manufacturer on Aug 23 last year.

In judicial review cases, leave has to be gained first before the merits are heard, to ensure that the application is not frivolous or vexatious.

The government, in defending its decision, maintained that the right to seize the watches, due to their undesirable nature, was made under Section 17 of the PPPA, and therefore a government gazette or prohibition was not needed.

Prior to Amarjeet announcing his decision, Nizam informed the court that on his client’s instructions, a supplementary affidavit had been filed following comments made by the government in the media claiming the seizure was legal.

While news reports “cause a lot of stress (for the courts) in making a decision”, Amarjeet said the court was not bound by the decision made by the executive or legislature.

Read also:
Home Ministry respects court's decision to return 172 'Pride collection' watches
Seizure of Swatch’s rainbow-themed watches is legal, no need for prohibitory order — Home Ministry
Swatch gets permission to challenge seizure of 'rainbow' watches after no objections from AGC
Swatch Malaysia takes Putrajaya to court over ‘rainbow’ watches