In this article, I explore some implications of judicial challenges to early dissolutions of national parliaments from a comparative perspective. I assess two cases where the constitutionality of the dissolution was upheld (Germany 1983 and 2005) and four where it was not (Czechia 2009, Nepal February 2021 and July 2021 and Pakistan 2022). The evidence suggests that judicial intervention in parliamentary dissolution disputes is often inferred rather than explicitly codified in legal statutes, underscoring the profound impact unwritten constitutional norms and democratic tradition can have on the political process. Predictably, judicial scrutiny of governmental actions enables courts to oversee and, when necessary, rectify breaches of constitutional limits and instances of executive overreach. The Nepalese and Pakistani cases further suggest that the judiciary can play an active role in safeguarding the cardinal principle of parliamentarism, dictating that the legislature must be able to subject governments to the test of confidence when required or if it so desires. A review of the history of judicial intervention in earlier cases of assembly dismissals in Pakistan, however, highlights how this process is not always consistent and unbiased. Gaining a deeper understanding of these interactions is important, given their highly consequential nature, as well as timely, given the increasing reliance on the judicial branch for the adjudication of disputes related to parliamentary dissolution in recent years.