English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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

An Overview on the Public Interest Litigation in Malaysia: Development and Dilemma Under Provision of Remedies for Enforcement of Fundamental Rights