The element of form is fundamental to the validity of an individual administrative decision; it constitutes the external framework through which the administration expresses its legal will and serves as a crucial safeguard for protecting individual rights and freedoms against administrative authority. Comparative legal systems vary significantly in their regulation of this element, giving rise to numerous legal and practical issues regarding the adequacy of legislative frameworks, their consistency with general principles of administrative law, and their ability to balance public interest requirements with the protection of individual rights. This study examines the element of form in individual administrative decisions through a critical, analytical comparison of three distinct legal systems: the Iraqi, Iranian, and Egyptian systems. It aims to analyze the concept of form and its legal dimensions, classify its types, distinguish it from other essential elements of administrative decisions, evaluate the adequacy of legislative regulation in each of the three systems, identify similarities and differences among them, and offer practical recommendations for legislative improvement. The study employs a critical, comparative-analytical methodology, examining legislative provisions, judicial rulings, and scholarly opinions across the three systems. It concludes that the regulation of form is more detailed in Iraqi and Egyptian law than in Iranian law—though all three systems exhibit shortcomings in addressing certain procedural matters—and that these regulatory disparities directly impact the level of protection afforded to individual rights. The study recommends that Iraqi and Iranian legislators adopt more precise standards for regulating form and draw upon the Egyptian experience in this regard, while taking into account the national specificities of each legal system.