This study initially categorizes all 284 research papers on public administration's acceptance of judicial supervision from 1945 to 2022 in the field of public administration within the Web of Science database. It establishes a research framework encompassing “driving factors-supervision modes-supervision effects” and illustrates the implementation of judicial supervision on public administration in China. Drawing upon this framework, the paper articulates three research propositions within the realm of Western public administration scholarship concerning judicial oversight of public administration. Proposition 1 posits that the judicial supervision of public administration is propelled by diverse factors, encompassing shifts in the social milieu, individual perceptions, legislative endorsement for judicial oversight, inadequacies in administrative restraints, and the expansion, inertia, and internal imbalances of administrative power. Proposition 2 suggests that the judiciary employs four distinct modes to supervise public administration: case-by-case correction, litigation deterrence, systemic change, and normative guidance. Proposition 3 contends that judicial oversight of public administration has far-reaching effects on personnel, decision-making processes, and procedural norms, thereby contributing to the normalization of the administrative system. Furthermore, it influences administrative performance, accountability structures, and rights protection, ultimately augmenting comprehensive public governance. These effects are subject to modulation by multidimensional factors emanating from the spheres of the judiciary, administration, politics, and society. Expanding upon the established research framework, this paper delves into practical instances of judicial oversight in the realm of public administration in China and puts forth two research prospects. Firstly, the research on judicial supervision of public administration encounters challenges in conceptual validity. These challenges arise from the absence of appropriate measures for key concepts, limitations in data sources hindering detailed empirical research, and methodological shortcomings affecting the validity of findings. To address these issues, this paper recommends the development of specialized indicators to measure key concepts, leveraging digital technology to broaden data sources, and adopting cutting-edge methods to enhance the causal discourse. Secondly, distinct disparities exist between China's reform experience and Western theoretical assumptions. In China, the social, legislative, and administrative elements shaping the external environment of judicial supervision exhibit a simultaneous and gradual relationship. Furthermore, the Chinese judiciary is intricately embedded within the party and government system. Consequently, this paper advocates for a comprehensive analysis of the factors propelling judicial oversight, an expanded exploration of the symbiotic relationship between the judiciary and administration, and a thorough assessment of the effectiveness of judicial supervision across three dimensions: political response, administrative performance, and rights protection.