He took off his jacket, removed his valuables and handed everything to his brother-in-law. With a wave to watching reporters, Hardial Singh Sekhon quietly went with two policemen to begin his eight-month sentence for contempt of court.

The 76-year-old, described by a previous court as a "vexatious litigant" had reached the end of the line after filing a series of court cases since the 1980s.

So prolific was he that then Shah Alam High Court judge Mahadev Shankar had barred him from ever filing another case without the court's prior consent.

In 1999, he broke that rule by filing an election petition which, among others, sought to challenge former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad's victory for the Kubang Pasu constituency that year.

He subsequently sought leave but did not succeed though this did not stop him from proceeding with the case on the grounds that an election petition did not constitute a legal proceeding.

Today, the Court of Appeal begged to differ. This morning it weighed all arguments and handed down the judgment after the prosecutor insisted on a jail sentence although this was reduced from the original 12 months.

"I did it all for public interest, If there is injustice I have fought for it. I have no remorse," declared the self-claimed arbitrator and father of four valiantly.

Asked by reporters later if he intended to appeal, he said that he may consider taking the matter to an "international court".

Forgone conclusion

When the case was called, Hardial, representing himself, said that he should not be cited for contempt because an election petition was not a legal proceeding.

Justice Gopal Sri Ram - who sat with Justices Hashim Mohd Yusof and James Foong - rebutted his legal arguments stating that the facts of the case made their decision a forgone conclusion

"We are not prepared to hear your arguments. The order (barring Hardial from instituting legal proceedings without leave) has been made and gazetted. So now you tell us why you should not be sent for jail for breaching the order," said Gopal.

Hardial then said that since the case he had filed was more than 12 years ago, there was no more urgency in the matter.

"I did not do it for my own interest. I did it for the public. If I had erred in law maybe I should not be given imprisonment. A fine would be more appropriate," he said.

Gopal then asked Deputy Public Prosecutor Pritam Singh whether the prosecution was willing to concede to a non-custodial sentence considering Hardial's age and the fact that there was no more urgency in the matter.

Pritam pressed for a custodial sentence stating that Hardial had never showed remorse for his actions.

At this point, Hardial argued that the High Court jail sentence was too harsh which led Gopal to quip: " I know how you act since the days of Coliseum. You are lucky that you got 12 months, I would have given you 24 months!"

Gopal then asked Hardial to give the court an assurance that he will not be filing any more legal proceedings in the future to which the latter did.

"On the facts of the case, we dismiss the appeal. However, having regards to his age we set aside the 12-month jail term and substitute it to one of eight months jail to be served forthwith," Gopal ruled.

Hardial asked if he could file applications for appeal and bail but was told that he could only do it later.

Conspiracy claims

Outside the court, reporters were told the "vexatious litigant"order was rare in Malaysia and that Hardial was the only one who has been jailed under it.

Hardial Singh had also started a petition against Dr Mahathir Mohamad, claiming that the then prime minister had conspired with Chief Justice Wan Adnan Ismail in committing an offence under the Election Act.

He claimed that Mahathir had refused to give a direction to Justice Faiza Thamby Chik in a case where the judge had declared him (Hardial Singh) a bankrupt.

As a result, Hardial claimed, he could not qualify as a candidate for the Kubang Pasu parliamentary constituency against Mahathir in the 1995 elections.

The Shah Alam High Court had sentenced Hardial on April 17, 2000 as he had contravened the 1990 order which prohibited him from instituting any legal proceedings in any court without leave from a judge.

Justice Low Hop Bing had then described Hardial as a 'vexatious litigant' who would stop at nothing to start proceedings although prohibited.

The High Court also dismissed the election petition with costs, saying the whole application was null and void since no leave had been granted.