Kuala lumpur: The High Court here today allowed a judicial review application filed by three non-governmental organisations (NGOs) challenging the government's 2023 decision to exempt vape liquids and gels from the Poisons List. The three NGOs involved in the case are the Malaysian Council for Tobacco Control, Malaysian Green Lung Association, and Voice of the Children. According to BERNAMA News Agency, Judge Datuk Aliza Sulaiman ruled that the applicants had successfully proved the government's decision to grant the exemption was irrational. She noted that the decision was primarily driven by economic reasons and was made before the Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Act 2024 (Act 852) came into force on October 1, 2024. The NGOs filed their judicial review application on June 30, 2023, seeking a declaration that the Poisons (Amendment of Poisons List) Order 2023, dated March 31, 2023, was an irrational exercise of power. The NGOs also argued that the exemption was introduced without proper and adequate consultation with the Poisons Board, making the decision ultra vires Section 6 of the Poisons Act 1952. On the issue of consultation, Justice Aliza noted that the respondents, including the then Health Minister and the government, contended that the Poisons Board Act (Act 366) does not specify the required method of consultation and should be interpreted based on the board's functions as outlined in Section 3 of the Act. However, the judge emphasized that consultation with the Poisons Board under Section 6 of the Act is mandatory and must be conscious, meaningful, purposeful, and effective. She pointed out that there was no physical meeting between the then Health Minister and the Poisons Board, suggesting that the alleged consultation was merely a formal compliance with Act 366, lacking an exchange of views and consideration of counterproposals. Justice Aliza described the process as being "almost like a done deal." No order as to costs was made, as the applicants' lawyer, K. Shanmuga, informed th e court that they were not seeking costs due to the matter involving public interest litigation. Senior federal counsel Nurhafizza Azizan represented the two respondents in the case.