Abstract
In Malaysia, the evolution of the public interest litigation in Paragraph 1 Schedule for the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (the provision of remedies for enforcement of fundamental rights), is affected by the differences of judicial attitude in giving an interpretation on the issue of standing under Order 53 rule 2 (4) of the Rules of Court 2012. On one hand, some judges took a strict and narrow approach on the interpretation of the issue of standing. On the other hand, some judges took a more liberal, broad and less rigid approach toward interpretation of the issue of standing. This scenario resulted the public interest litigation in Paragraph 1 is uncertain. The objective of this article is to study the development and problems faced on the public interest litigation in Malaysia under Paragraph 1 Schedule for the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and to provide solutions to the problems concerned. The method used in the present study is doctrinal approach that emphasises qualitative descriptive study, thus it requires a comprehensive review. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n2p114
Highlights
Public interest litigation plays a critical part to maintain the rule of law and enhance access to justice for disadvantaged groups under public law
Many studies conducted on the development and challenges of public interest litigation generally under the Malaysian public law up until the case of Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang and United Engineers (M) Bhd v Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 43, but until now, a study on the growth and the dilemma of public interest litigation post UEM case in the provision of remedies for enforcement of the fundamental rights under Paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 still does not carry out
The purpose of this paper is to look at the development and the dilemma faced on public interest litigation in Malaysia under the provision of remedies for enforcement of fundamental rights in Paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964
Summary
Public interest litigation plays a critical part to maintain the rule of law and enhance access to justice for disadvantaged groups under public law. The Court should relax the rules on locus standi in public law to permit any public acting bona fide with a view to vindicating the cause of justice to make application on behalf of others or a particular class of people, if that other person or class of people cannot come to court to get relief for some reason. It is a grave lacuna in the system of public law if public interest litigation is prevented by traditional rules of locus standi. This study should be carried out to identify problems that encounter and to furnish solutions to these problems
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
