Judicial review in Malaysia was described as the process whereby the High Court exercises its supervisory jurisdiction over trials and judgments of lower courts

Authors Avatar by arulnangainarenthirangmailcom (student)

Judicial review in Malaysia was described as the process whereby the High Court exercises its supervisory jurisdiction over trials and judgments of lower courts, tribunals and other bodies or individuals carrying out functions of a quasi-judicial who are responsible for carrying out the performance of public acts and duties. The jurisdiction initially came from the common law, and was exerted by the issue of the prerogative writs of mandamus, certiorari and prohibition, however is currently conferred and governed by statutes and the rules of court. Therefore, administrative law in Malaysia is recognized and practiced as part of the common law of England and by the approval of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. Judicial review of civil proceedings or matters is governed by The Rules of the High Court, The Specific Relief Act 1950, and in accordance to the statutory powers bestowed on courts pursuant to para 1 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.

With respect to the traditional approach, 'Judicial review was an inherent right of the courts and not statutory. The courts were entitled only to supervisory jurisdiction and therefore cannot intervene the merits of the decision. The court can only review the decision-making proses, but the decision. The courts are not allowed to change the decision on their own. For the new approach however, after R Ramachandran v. Industrial Court of Malaysia and Anor’s case, the Federal Constitution granted the High Court additional powers under judicial review. The court can review the decision and the merits of the decision may be analyzed, the judgment of the admin body may be replaced by its own and even relief is given to the affected parties.

Natural justice is one of the grounds of judicial review invoked by the courts to annul the unauthorized administrative action. Firstly, the traditional garb of natural justice is confined to the twin ideas of right to be heard and rule against prejudice. It does not include the obligation of the administrator to explain the reasons for his decision. Secondly, natural justice can be easily and efficiently rejected by statute as a result of common law creation. Hence, Parliament at the command of the has the authority to rob the judiciary of one of its most significant weapons in the armory of judicial review. In the mid-1990s, the Malaysian courts stated to introduce a new and different version of Natural Justice in accordance with Procedural Fairness. Procedural Fairness was first proposed in the case of Raja Abdul Malek Muzaffar Shah bin Raja Shahruzzaman v Setiausaha Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis & Ors, by His Lordship Gopal Sri Ram JCA ' where he claim that the term 'procedural fairness' was to be in favor to the 'traditional nomenclature "rules of Natural Justice".

Join now!

The next Ground is Substantive fairness. Substantive Fairness is the traditional common law approach to judicial review which is a reviewing court that applies solely to the decision-making process and not to the merits of the decision itself. The first acknowledgement of reception of substantive fairness into our legal system was present in the case of Tan Tek Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan although it is clear that the Court did not apply directly to the word 'substantive fairness.' In that case, the court ruled that, the requirement of fairness in Article 8(1) read along with Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution guaranteed not only ...

This is a preview of the whole essay