This paper deals with a comparative study of remedies for enforcement of fundamental rights in Malaysia and India. The provision of remedies for enforcement of fundamental rights plays an important role in preserving and defending the fundamental rights in the Constitution. Hence, the said provision is better catered for under the Constitution than under an ordinary legislation to ensure strength in upholding fundamental rights. In Malaysia, the provision of remedies for enforcement of fundamental rights provided under an ordinary legislation. Conversely, Indian Constitution has provided such remedies under Article 32 and 226. The Indian Courts have given a wide construction to Article 32 and 226 of which the provisions give powers to the Supreme Court as well as High Courts to issue any order, including any order in the nature of the common law prerogative writs, for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. In addition, the Indian High Court has jurisdiction to issue writs not only for the purpose of enforcing fundamental rights, but also to enforce any legal rights because of the words „for any other purposes‟ in Article 226. On this paper the writer makes a comparative study on the remedies for enforcement of fundamental rights between Malaysia and India to find out more information regarding the position of the law given in both the countries. At the end of the paper, the writer will make recommendations for the purpose of improving the law concerns.