Federal Justice Raja Azlan Shah rejected the argument of the appellant, stating that although Article 4(1) declared that any unconstitutional law passed after independence would be void, this did not apply to the Constitution itself - the Constitution could not be internally inconsistent.
This reasoning, in my view, is based on the premise that the Constitution as the supreme law, unchangeable by ordinary means, is distinct from ordinary law and as such cannot be inconsistent with itself [REF].