Judicial review is one of the core constitutional features that lays the foundations of the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, and protection of individual rights, by allowing courts to review the legality and constitutionality of legislative and executive decisions and actions. Its scope, nature and constitutional bases vary however, significantly in different legal systems. This article compares judicial review in the United Kingdom, the United States, France and India, looking at the history, constitution, institutions and practice of each. The United Kingdom has a doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and limited judicial review principles, as opposed to those of the United States which are very strong in constitutional judicial review principles, with judicial precedent as the basis. The Basic Structure Doctrine has expanded and made the judicial review system in Indian Constitution dynamic and strong, while in France it is a centralized constitutional review system through the Constitutional Council. Despite the variations in judicial review from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the study shows that it is an essential tool for upholding constitutionalism, holding government to account, and protecting democratic governance.