482 Malayan Law Journal [2017] 1 MLJ chapter III, are expressed in general and abstract terms which invite the participation of the judiciary in giving them sufficient flesh to answer concrete questions. The framers of the Constitution would have been aware that they were invoking concepts of liberty such as free speech, fair trials and freedom from cruel punishments which went back to the enlightenment and beyond, And they would have been aware that sometimes the practical expression of these concepts what limits on free speech are acceptable, what counts as a fair trial, what is a cruel punishment had been different in the past and might again be different in the future. But whether they entertained these thoughts or not, the terms in which these provisions of the Constitution are expressed necessarily co-opts future generations of judges to the enterprise of giving life to the abstract statements of fundamental rights. A B C … … [12] The third principle is this. A court when interpreting the other provisions of our Constitution, in particular, those appearing in Part II thereof, must do so in the light of what has been correctly referred to as ‘the humanising and all pervading provisions of art 8(1)’ … D [33] It was clear therefore that the appellant was not precluded in advancing or of building up their case as set out in the suit for appropriate intervention by the courts. The circumstances under which art 5 of the Federal Constitution could be availed of for the assistance of an aggrieved person was not shut, (as affirmed by the Federal Court in Lee Kwan Woh’s, and it was well within the powers of the court to give ‘flesh’ to those abstract statements in concrete life situations as they emerge, like for instance in this fact scenario where there has been a delay in the carrying out of the death sentence coupled with the appellant’s adverse mental condition. The pleadings filed, as shown above, also sufficiently adverted to the relevant facts and the nature of the relief prayed for by the appellant. It was open to the courts to consider all relevant issues and allow or dismiss the appellant’s complaint. E F G [34] We were of the view that the court was therefore clearly and definitely seized with the needful jurisdiction to judicially determine the issues raised by the appellant in the suit. H [35] On the question of whether the contentions of the appellant had any arguable basis or foundation, suffice for us to refer to certain pertinent observations of the Supreme Court of India in the Shatrughan Chauhan. That case revolved around the reach of art 21 of the Indian Constitution, which was in the following terms: I Article 21. No person will be deprived of his life and liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law.