Counsel Shaharudin Ali, who is appearing for lawyer Mohd Khairul Azam Abdul Aziz, said the Federal Court Registry notified his legal firm of the date this afternoon.
“We have also been informed that all written submissions must be filed by Friday (Nov 1),” Shaharudin said.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers, which will represent the education ministry and Putrajaya, is expected to take a position as to why leave should not be granted.
Khairul filed a motion on Oct 23 to seek a declaration from the Federal Court that it is unconstitutional for Parliament to pass an amendment to Sections 17 and 28 of the Education Act 1996.
He needs to obtain leave from a single judge under Article 4 (4) of the Federal Constitution as he is challenging the competency of the federal legislature (Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara) to pass laws.
The overhauled Education Act was passed in 1996 to replace the Education Ordinance of 1956 and the Education Act of 1961.
Dr Mahathir Mohamad was the prime minister when Barisan Nasional was administering the country while Najib Razak was the education minister.
Section 17 of the Education Act states that the national language is the main medium of instruction. It states:
17 (1) The national language shall be the main medium of instruction in all educational institutions in the national education system except a national-type school established under Section 28 or any other educational institution exempted by the minister from this subsection.
(2) Where the main medium of instruction in an educational institution is other than the national language, the national language shall be taught as a compulsory subject in the educational institution.
Meanwhile, Section 28 of the Education Act covers the establishment and maintenance of national and national-type schools.
It states that subject to the provisions of this Act, the minister may establish national schools and national-type schools and shall maintain such schools.
In the motion, Khairul stated that Parliament had no authority to pass the two provisions in the law and it did not give the education minister the discretion to establish Chinese and Tamil primary schools.