Judicial review is the authority of the court to review the acts of the legislative, executive and judiciary. It is a key aspect of the constitution and an essential element of constitutionalism. Here, the judiciary plays a vital role in reviewing the constitutionality of the federal and state governments' legislative enactments and executive orders. Our constitution allows for judicial review in order to verify this discrepancy or any other unconstitutional legislation, regulations, laws or by-laws, or any other act of statute. COVID-19 is declared as global pandemic by WHO and the India has been the second worst COVID affected nation after U.S.A. A state of blockade was created by the pandemic-induced lockdown, making us all demonstrate greater obedience to executive command. The blow to the existing state of law, legal framework, and judicial systems has been equally immense, if not greater. In order to discourage the constant crowd of thousands of lawyers, litigants, and judges with their accoutrements, normal courts have been closed down in both India and U.S.A. In pandemics or no pandemics, human tensions and conflicts between people and the state could not end. Hence, the courts have adopted virtual mode of hearing. Now, in 2021, second wave of COVID has hit both India and U.S. which has again led judiciary to shift to virtual mode. This paper discusses the analysis of judicial review during COVID-19 on a comparative basis between India and United States of America (U.S.A). As the concept of judicial review has been originated in U.S.A. and India has adopted it, the comparison becomes more appropriate to know how effectively both countries are utilizing the concept. As both follows the principle of integrated and independent judiciary, the comparison can lead us to know different aspects which might help us to deal with future contingencies.