This article examines the development between judicial review and constitutional supremacy in Malaysia and how the courts have been traversing a delicate equilibrium between judicial restraint and constitutional activism. Although Article 4(1) of the Federal Constitution enhances the supremacy of the constitution, the supremacy of the constitution was marred by the restraint and aggressiveness of the judiciary, particularly after the 1988 judicial crisis. Based on a doctrinal and case-based analysis, this paper critically analyzes landmark case laws as well as statutory and institutional reform effected to date, to assess the stance of the judiciary in reviewing the action of the executive and the legislature. Through the reviewed literature, it is possible to note that despite the Federal Constitution setting up the courts as the guardians of the constitutional integrity, Malaysia has a complex balance that is hybrid, with parliamentary actions interfering with judicial mandate. Conclusively, it proposes enhanced institutional protection and doctrinal continuity to endorse a stronger judicial ambiance within the Malaysian framework of governance.