This study aims to comparatively analyze the status, structure, and effectiveness of judicial and quasi-judicial bodies responsible for overseeing the exercise of administrative powers in the legal systems of Iran and Iraq. An examination of these bodies from jurisprudential, legal, and institutional perspectives reveals that both countries emphasize common principles, including the principle of legality of administrative decisions, the prohibition of arbitrary administrative action, and the necessity of accountability and effective oversight of the administration. In Iran, the Administrative Justice Court and affiliated quasi-judicial bodies have established a more coherent framework for exercising judicial oversight and restricting administrative discretion. In Iraq, however, despite legislative and technological advances, the Administrative Court continues to face challenges concerning institutional independence and the enforcement of its judgments. This study adopts a descriptive-analytical and comparative research method, drawing on jurisprudential sources, legislative documents, and judicial decisions. The findings indicate that integrating jurisprudential principles with statutory provisions in Iran and Iraq could provide a model for enhancing the effectiveness and transparency of administrative oversight in Islamic legal systems.